NAMBUCCA

SHIRE COUNCIL

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

10 October 2012

 

Council has adopted the following Vision and Mission Statements to describe its philosophy and to provide a focus for the principal activities detailed in its Management Plan.

 

Our Vision

Nambucca Valley ~ Living at its best.

 

Our? Mission Statement

 

?The Nambucca Valley will value and protect its natural environment, maintain its assets and infrastructure and develop opportunities for its people.?

 

Our Values in Delivery

?                Effective leadership

?                Strategic direction

?                Sustainability of infrastructure and assets

?                Community involvement and enhancement through partnerships with Council

?                Enhancement and protection of the environment

?                Maximising business and employment opportunities through promotion of economic development

?                Addressing social and cultural needs of the community through partnerships and provision of facilities and services

?                Actively pursuing resource sharing opportunities

 

Council Meetings:? Overview and Proceedings

 

Council meetings are held on the last Thursday of each month commencing at 5.30 pm AND and a full day meeting commencing at 8.30am on the Wednesday two weeks and one day before the Thrusday meeting. Meetings are held in the Council Chamber at Council's Administration Centre?44 Princess Street, Macksville.

 

How can a Member of the Public Speak at a Council Meeting?

 

1??????? Addressing Council with regard to an item on the meeting agenda:

 

Members of the public are welcome to attend meetings and address the Council.? Registration to speak may be made by telephone or in person before 2.00 pm on a meeting day.? The relevant agenda item will be brought forward at 5.30 pm in agenda order, and dealt with following preliminary business items on the agenda.? Public addresses are limited to five (5) minutes per person with a limit of two people speaking for and two speaking against an item.?

 

2??????? Public forum address regarding matters not on the meeting agenda:

 

Council allows not more than two (2) members of the public per meeting to address it on matters not listed in the agenda provided the request is received before publication of the agenda and the subject of the address is disclosed and recorded on the agenda.

 

Speakers should address issues and refrain from making personal attacks or derogatory remarks.? You must treat others with respect at all times.

 

Meeting Agenda

 

These are available from the Council's Administration Building, the Regional Libraries in Macksville and Nambucca Heads as well as Council?s website: www.nambucca.nsw.gov.au


 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

 

Acknowledgement of Country????????? ? (Mayor)

 

I would like to acknowledge the Gumbaynggirr people who are the Traditional Custodians of this Land.? I would also like to pay respect to the elders both past and present and extend that respect to any Aboriginal People present.

 

AGENDA?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

1??????? APOLOGIES

2??????? PRAYER

3??????? DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

4??????? CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ? Special Council Meeting - 26 September 2012

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????? Odinary Council Meeting - 27 September 2012

5??????? NOTICES OF MOTION ?

6??????? PUBLIC FORUM

7??????? ASKING OF QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE ??

8??????? QUESTIONS FOR CLOSED MEETING WHERE DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

9??????? General Manager Report

9.1???? Outstanding Actions and Reports....................................................................................... 6

9.2???? Environmental Levy - Vegetation Mapping Project............................................................... 11

9.3???? Review of Environmental Levy Program.............................................................................. 34

9.4???? Review of Council Off-Street Parking Requirements............................................................ 48

9.5???? Planning Proposal Nambucca Local Environmental Plan Amendment no. 10......................... 52

9.6???? 2012/2013 Water and Sewerage Access Charges ............................................................. 57

9.7???? Endorsement of Flying Fox Plan of Management - Grassy Park, Bowraville.......................... 62

9.8???? Christmas Holidays Closure - 2012-2013........................................................................... 74

9.9???? Missabotti Community Centre Committee of Management Extraordinary Meeting - 9 September 2012 - Minutes.......................................................................................................................... 76

9.10?? Donnelly-Welsh Playing Fields Committee of Management - Annual General Meeting - 2 September 2011 - Minutes.......................................................................................................................... 80

9.11?? Macksville Senior Citizens Centre Committee of Management - Annual General Meeting - 23 February 2012 - Minutes................................................................................................................ 90

9.12?? Eungai District Community Council - Committee of Management AGM - 4 September 2012... 94

9.13?? Warrell Creek Hall Committee of Management AGM - 5 September 2012 - Minutes............... 99

9.14?? Boulton's Crossing (Gumma) Reserve - Camping Fees...................................................... 106

9.15?? Section 94 Status Report............................................................................................... 111

10????? Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

10.1?? Report on Minutes of the Access Committee meeting 24 July 2012.................................... 117

10.2?? Report on Minutes of the Access Committee meeting 25 September? 2012......................... 122

10.3?? DA's and CDC's Received and Determined Under Delegated Authority from 15-28 September 2012? 128

10.4?? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 28 September 2012............................................................................................................ 130

10.5?? DA2012/097 Application for a Dwelling - with a Request to Vary Rural Buffer Requirements.. 132

10.6?? Draft Policy - Abandoned Shopping Trolleys..................................................................... 153


11????? Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

11.1?? Naming the New Beach Area ? Ferry Street, Macksville.................................................... 157

11.2?? Policy Review - Tree Vandalism...................................................................................... 161

11.3?? Tender for the Supply of Raw Feed Ex Bin....................................................................... 170

11.4?? Tender for the Supply of Roadbase Ex Bin....................................................................... 173

11.5?? Tender for the Supply of Crusher Run Ex Bin.................................................................... 176

11.6?? Tender for the Supply and Delivery of Road Surfacing T11213MNC..................................... 179

11.7?? Tender for the Supply of Aggregate for Patching Machine T51213NAM............................... 182

11.8?? Tender for the Supply and Incorporation of Stabilising Agents T21213NAM.......................... 185

11.9?? Temporary Road Closures for Events on Roads................................................................ 188 ????

 

 

 


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

 

 

Name of Meeting:

 

Meeting Date:

 

Item/Report Number:

 

Item/Report Title:

 

 

 

I

 

declare the following interest:

????????? (name)

 

 

 

 

Pecuniary ? must leave chamber, take no part in discussion and voting.

 

 

 

Non Pecuniary ? Significant Conflict ? Recommended that Councillor/Member leaves chamber, takes no part in discussion or voting.

 

 

Non-Pecuniary ? Less Significant Conflict ? Councillor/Member may choose to remain in Chamber and participate in discussion and voting.

 

For the reason that

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

Date

 

 

 

 

 

Council?s Email Address ? council@nambucca.nsw.gov.au

 

Council?s Facsimile Number ? (02) 6568 2201

 

(Instructions and definitions are provided on the next page).

 


Definitions

 

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

 

Pecuniary ? An interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or another person with whom the person is associated.

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

 

A Councillor or other member of a Council Committee who is present at a meeting and has a pecuniary interest in any matter which is being considered must disclose the nature of that interest to the meeting as soon as practicable.

 

The Council or other member must not take part in the consideration or discussion on the matter and must not vote on any question relating to that matter. (Section 451).

 

 

Non-pecuniary ? A private or personal interest the council official has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Act (for example; a friendship, membership of an association, society or trade union or involvement or interest in an activity and may include an interest of a financial nature).

 

If you have declared a non-pecuniary conflict of interest you have a broad range of options for managing the conflict.? The option you choose will depend on an assessment of the circumstances of the matter, the nature of your interest and the significance of the issue being dealt with.? You must deal with a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in at least one of these ways.

 

?        It may be appropriate that no action is taken where the potential for conflict is minimal.? However, council officials should consider providing an explanation of why they consider a conflict does not exist.

?        Limit involvement if practical (for example, participate in discussion but not in decision making or visa-versa).? Care needs to be taken when exercising this option.

?        Remove the source of the conflict (for example, relinquishing or divesting the personal interest that creates the conflict or reallocating the conflicting duties to another officer).

?        Have no involvement by absenting yourself from and not taking part in any debate or voting on the issue as if the provisions in section 451(2) of the Act apply (particularly if you have a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest).

 

??????? ?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

General Manager

ITEM 9.1????? SF959????????????? 101012???????? Outstanding Actions and Reports

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

 

The following table is a report on all outstanding resolutions and questions from Councillors (except development consents, development control plans & local environmental plans). Matters which are simply noted or received, together with resolutions adopting rates, fees and charges are not listed as outstanding actions. Where matters have been actioned they are indicated with strikethrough and then removed from the report to the following meeting. Please note that the status comments have been made one week before the Council meeting.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the list of outstanding actions and reports be noted and received for information by Council.

 

 

 

No

FILE

NO

COUNCIL

MEETING

SUMMARY OF MATTER

ACTION

BY

STATUS

 

 

 

JULY 2010

 

 

1

SF218

15/07/10

Council review investigations to extend sewer to the Lower Nambucca and investigate effluent disposal issues in Eungai.

 

GM/

AGMCCS

Letter sent to owners in Lower Nambucca. Briefing and discussion with property owners to be arranged.

DEP to investigate Eungai.

De Groot Benson contacted concerning a meeting date in February 2011.

Information sent through to consultant. Meeting now not likely to late March 2011.

Consultant advised that meeting will need to be deferred to May 2011 due to unavailability.

Staff workloads have not permitted to proceed in May. June now targeted.

Now deferred to August.

Costing being prepared on a pressurised system so facts and figures will be discussed.

 

Further deferred until full compliment of staff on board.

 

 

 

MARCH 2011

 

2

DA2010/234

17/3/11

Council develop a policy as to the cumulative impacts of locating fill on the floodplain at Macksville and also review the matrix in the Floodplain Risk Management Plan

 

AGMCCS

Brief to be prepared and new floodplain study to be undertaken during 2011.

RTA has now engaged Consultants to prepare a new full and comprehensive flood study which will be provided to Council upon completion. At this time Council will be able to proceed to complete a new Flood Plain Risk Management Plan incorporates a revised matrix.

DEP advised meeting arranged with RTA.

Draft flood study likely to be presented to Council May/June 2012.

Re the delay, Council?s Strategic Planner has followed up the RMS.

Staff meeting with Consultants on Wednesday 29/08/12.

 


 

JUNE 2011

3

SF841

2/06/2011

Council write to the RTA requesting they design the new Nambucca River bridge at Macksville to provide 62m between the main channel piers and ensure the bridge is tall enough to allow yachts to pass under at maximum high tide.

 

AGMCCS

Letter sent 8 June 2011.

No response as at 6 December 2011.

Further letter sent 10 January 2012.

 

No formal response, however RMS have verbally advised that a formal response will be with Council prior to the end of May 2012

DEP to follow up with RMS.

 

To be discussed at meeting outlined in 3 above.

JULY 2011

4

SF1031

21/7/2011

That the policy for Climate Change Adaption be deferred to allow amendments to be made to the draft policy

 

GM

Policy under revision and to be reported to future meeting.? Also the State Government policy has recently changed.

OCTOBER 2011

5

SF1595

20/10/2011

Council review its Tree Maintenance and Removal Application Policy asap, to provide greater clarity with regard to application assessments

 

AGMES

January GPC

Draft policy to be provided to Councillors at the end of January for comment and report to March GPC.

 

Further work being undertaken on the policy emanating from the resolutions of Council?s meeting 2/2/12. Draft policy will now be provided to Councillors for comment at end of February.

Due to natural disasters deferred to May 2012.

Deferred until   October following the election of the new Council and to be included in Tree Register? Item No 11 below.

 

6

SF938

3/11/2011

Council receive from the Property Officer a draft policy on future licensing for water reservoir space

 

GM

Report in December 2011. Deferred due to resignation of Property Officer.

 

7

SF1460

17/11/2011

Structure of the Farmland (rate) Category be changed to incorporate the statutory minimum with ad valorem maintaining yield. Council undertake a review of the farmland criteria to better reflect high intensity pursuits.

 

GM

Farmland criteria to be revised prior to the issuing of the 2012/13 rates.

 

Change in Rates staff meant that there has not been the opportunity to review the criteria.? To be reported in 2012/2013.

 

 

JANUARY 2012

8

SF1714

19/01/2012

That an on-site inspection at the Nambucca Beach Holiday Park be conducted by Councillors at a GPC to resolve DA2011/142 and the proposal be pegged out for that site inspection.

 

AGMCCS

Will be scheduled once application is ready for determination.

 

This matter progressing with license over additional land granted which rectifies encroachment.

9

SF742

19/01/2012

Council prepare a draft brochure to demonstrate land slip risk and tips for minimising risk.

 

GM

Aim to have completed by June 2012.

Existing information brochures have been sourced.

Small item in rates newsletter.? Grants Officer to prepare brochure.

 


 

FEBRUARY 2012

10

GB2/12

02/02/2012

Appropriate sized nesting boxes be place in trees in close proximity to the Cabbage Gum site (Link Road)

AGMES

20 nesting boxes organised and will be installed once they have been received; two advanced trees ordered and will be planted.?

 

Nesting boxes have now been delivered and will be installed shortly.

 

MARCH 2012

 

11

SF1743

15/03/2012

The tree register be referred back to the DES so that he may prepare a further report and recommendation to Council on a proposal which addresses historic, senescent or publicly significant trees on public land in urban areas.

 

AGMES

Report will be presented to Council in August 2012,

 

To incorporate outstanding action No 5 above.

 

Deferred until October following Council elections.

 

 

12

SF1714

11/04/2012

Council receive a report setting out the number of rural blocks which front sealed roads but do not have a building entitlement.

 

GM

Deferred to June 2012.

Investigations to commence when Strategic Planner returns from leave in August.

 

Investigations underway.

 

 

13

SF1714

11/04/2012

Council review the availability of industrial (employment) land at Nambucca Heads and Macksville and if necessary take steps to rezone further land.

 

GM

Deferred to June 2012.

Investigations to commence when Strategic Planner returns from leave in August.

 

Investigations underway.

 

14

DA2012/004

11/04/2012

Council review its Car Parking Code

 

GM

Deferred to June 2012.

Investigations to commence when Strategic Planner returns from leave in August.

 

 

JUNE 2012

 

15

SF1747

29/06/2012

Council receive a report on the opportunities for employing and/or training its own traffic controllers and also enquiring about purchasing and utilising automatic traffic signals.

 

AGMES

Report to the August Council Meeting.

 

Report deferred until October following the Council elections due to the potential purchase of portable traffic lights.

 

 

JULY 2012

 

16

PRF54

26/7/2012

Council defer a decision on the use of the Boulton?s Crossing Reserve and make urgent representations to the Deputy Premier seeking his assistance in resolving the issues.

 

GM

Letter sent w/e 3 August 2012.? Also funding application under the Public Reserves Management Fund submitted on 31 July 2012.

Will report back upon determination of application.

 

Report in business paper 10/10/12 on camping fees.

 

17

SF399

26/7/2012

Council to consider ?loss? of $191,545 in FAG income in September quarter budget review.

 

GM

Report in November 2012

 


 

AUGUST 2012

18

SF544

15/08/2012

Council receive a report on S94 interplan borrowing; the current status of interplan borrowing; processes in place for repayments/acquittal; and desirability of the process generally.

 

GM

Report in October 2012

19

SF430

15/08/2012

Flying Fox Plan of Management ? Grassy Park - there be a further report to Council which considers all suggestions put forward at the inspection as well as responses from residents.

 

GM

Report in October 2012

20

SF96

15/08/2012

Council develop a policy in relation to the erection of signs on public land.

 

AGMES

A draft policy will be developed for Council in November 2012

SEPTEMBER 2012

21

SF988

27/09/2012

Council write again to Mr Stewart Dowrick and the Hon. Andrew Stoner MP reminding them that dialysis at Macksville Health Campus was part of a health strategy many years ago ? requesting when might the community expect an answer.

 

GM

Letters sent 3 October 2012

22

SF929

27/09/2012

Council write to NV Tourism and ask them to suggest a strategy for the future of the VIC taking into consideration a number of factors.

 

GM

Letter sent 3 October 2012

23

DA2012/093

27/09/2012

Council develop a Management Plan for Lions Park as soon as possible.

 

AGMES

Report in December 2012

37

SF768

27/09/2012

Further report on Weekes bridge and a further inspection.

 

AGMES

To be scheduled for Council meeting on 12 December 2012

24

SF688

27/09/2012

Review of environmental levy program requiring a full report on programs and projects.

 

GM

Report to 10 October 2012

25

SF1618

27/09/2012

Opportunities to find a home for U3A.

 

GM

Deferred to 10 October 2012 at request of U3A

26

SF84

27/09/2012

Council write to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services & others advising that a formal written explanation has not been forthcoming on the RFS line items ?other support? , ?insurances? and why RFS budgets are not provided to Council by 28 February in accordance with the service level agreement.?? Council also advise that it doesn?t accept paying for the GRN which is not available in the Nambucca Valley.

 

AGMES

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.2????? SF777????????????? 101012???????? Environmental Levy - Vegetation Mapping Project

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Grant Nelson, Strategic Planner; Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to recommend Council support a proposed project with the Office of Environmental and Heritage (OEH) to update Councils Vegetation Mapping prepared in 2003 (Kendall and Kendall) which was based on 1998 aerial photography.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

Council support option 2 as proposed by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) to update the vegetation mapping in the shire and that $40,000 be allocated from the Environmental Levy to fund this project.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may choose not to support the mapping project.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

On the 15 March 2012 Council resolved the following:

 

That Council note the advice that the Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia has been listed as an Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

 

That Council authorise the Grants Officer to investigate funding opportunities to undertake the ground truthing of the indicative vegetation mapping currently used by Council.

 

That Council write to the Hon Tony Burke MP (Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) asking what public consultation occurred prior to the determination; requesting whatever mapping the Department has relating to this Shire and if it can be provided to Council; and whatever assistance can be provided to Council and private land owners for ground truthing to determine definitively where the EECs occur.

 

To give effect to the above resolution the Director of Environmental and Planning wrote to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.? A response was provided which indicated potential grant opportunities and other general advice in relation to the lowland rainforest community [attachment 1].

 

More recently there have been staff discussions with the OEH in regards to opportunities to update our vegetation mapping. Councils existing vegetation mapping was prepared in 2003 by Kendall and Kendall based on 1998 aerial photography. When initially prepared Council held concerns regarding the extent of ground truthing undertaken to support the desktop classification of vegetation and resolved the following:

 

That Council formally receive but not adopt the Nambucca Catchment Vegetation Survey document prepared by Kendall and Kendall Ecological Services Pty Ltd until it is ground truthed.

 

That the document be used in an advisory capacity only.

 

OEH have recently assisted Coffs Harbour Council with the preparation of vegetation mapping in their LGA and are presently involved with a vegetation mapping project in Bellingen Shire. In response to a request for assistance to up date the Kendall and Kendall vegetation mapping OEH have provided three options [Attachment 2]:

 

A comparison of the 3 options is provided below:

 

Option

Woody/non-woody boundary

Complete Map upgrade

Candidate EEC

Cost

Council

OEH (inkind)

1

Yes

Yes

Yes

$133,983

$50,900

2

Yes

No

Yes

$34,596

$37,900

3

No

No

Yes

$26,356

$25,800

 

Options 1 and 2 will upgrade the mapping extent/boundaries based on 2009 aerial photography which Council presently has in its possession courtesy of the office of Land and Property Information.

 

Of these options, number 2 appears to best fit with Councils preliminary 2012/13 levy budget of $30,000. This option would require a contribution of $34,596 from Council (environmental levy), with equivalent of $37,950 in kind support from the OEH.? This option would update the extent of all vegetation and map internal boundaries for candidate Endangered Ecological Communities (EEC?s). An additional $5000 allowance is recommended to provide for any supplementary sampling or disembursments that may arise during the preparation process. A total allowance of $40000 in the levy budget is recommended.

 

Although option 1 provides a significant number of additional ground truthing plots it is at cost, requiring $133,983 cash support from Council, with approximately $50,900 in kind support from OEH. Also to map all internal boundaries to vegetation communities as proposed in option 1, rather than just indicative EEC?s (option 2) would reduce the density of ground truthing plots per hectare. This means the EEC?s would have less ground truthing per HA in option 1 compared to option 2.

 

Option 3 would be at cost of $26,356 to Council and provide in kind support from OEH to the amount of $25,000. However this option would only provide Council with candidate EEC?s. The extra cost to map the extent of other vegetation (option 2) is warranted in this instance as it would provide a number of benefits including:

 

?????? Identify the extent of vegetation that may be classified as an EEC at a future time;

?????? Accurately map the extent of vegetation that may be of interest in planning reports, Council operations, development assessment and future environmental projects.

 

Candidate Endangered Ecological Communities

 

One of the core objectives of this project is to map the extent of a candidate EEC?s. Discussions with OEH representatives indicate labelling as candidate EEC?s acknowledges potential significance however site specific investigations would still be required in relation to development or operational processes.

 

The project will identify vegetation communities using a classification system developed via OEH for the Northern Rivers CMA. This will ensure a consistent vegetation classification system has been used with local LGA?s. The classification of the vegetation communities will allow candidate EEC?s to be determined.

 


Ground Truthing Vegetation

 

Option 2 proposes 110 ground truthing assessments, combined with the original ground truthing completed by Kendall and Kendall will provide 211 plots for the survey area. These ground truthing plots will focus on areas most likely to constitute EEC?s. In preparing the options OEH have tried to find a balance between cost and adequacy.

 

OEH have indicated that it is only necessary to obtain representative samples from public and private land. In Coffs Harbour this was achieved on a voluntary basis via letter of invitation to property owners which have substantial vegetation cover. Should access to properties be denied it will not be pursued and alternative properties will be investigated.

 

Procurement

 

The Local Government Act 1993 and Council?s procurement policy exempts Council from tendering/quotation processes where Council enters into a contract with the Crown. A contract would be entered into with OEH for this project thus Council is not required to seek separate quotations. Nevertheless the quotation provided by OEH is considered to be competitive with over $37000 of in kind contributions to be provided by OEH.

 

Project Timing

 

OEH have indicated they are available to commence the project in Jan/Feb 2013 for completion in the current financial year.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

Office of Environment and Heritage

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Updating Councils vegetation mapping would provide a valuable resource for Council and the community in determining the potential significance of vegetated land related to planning matters and prioritising natural resource management.? Council has to be guided by its charter under Section 8 of the Local Government Act 1993 which includes;

 

?to properly manage, develop, protect, restore, enhance and conserve the environment of the area for which it is responsible, in a manner that is consistent with and promotes the principles of ecologically sustainable development?

 

Endangered ecological communities and threatened species are legislated by both the NSW and Commonwealth Governments.? Council has an obligation under both its Charter and the particular legislation to ensure that its planning processes provide appropriate recognition of their potential location.

 

Social

 

OEH will require access to some private land in order to undertake ground truthing.? This will be arranged with individuals as necessary.? There is likely to be concern about the implications of the vegetation mapping.? It will be made clear that the mapping is indicative, not definitive and that EEC declarations are made by the State and Commonwealth Governments, not Council.

 

Economic

 

The mapping will identify candidate EEC?s and vegetation with the shire. These vegetation types are regulated by the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and the Native Vegetation Act 2003 and as such are subject to certain legislative restrictions. The updated vegetation mapping will make information available to property owners and promote informed property management in relation this legislation.

 

Risk

 

Some property owners may express concerns if their properties are identified as containing a candidate EEC, however as an EEC is regulated under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, these vegetation communities are already warranted a level of protection. Identification of such vegetation may reduce the potential for mismanagement.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

A contribution of $34,596 (additional $5000 to address any unforseen matters during the process) is required from Council?s Environmental Levy and $37,950 in kind support will be provided by OEH.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

20073/2012 - Ministers response re endangered Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia

0 Pages

2View

22323/2012 - Proposed options for upgrading vegetation mapping

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

Environmental Levy - Vegetation Mapping Project

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

Environmental Levy - Vegetation Mapping Project

 



















Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

General Manager

ITEM 9.3????? SF688????????????? 101012???????? Review of Environmental Levy Program

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Michael Coulter, General Manager; Grant Nelson, Strategic Planner ????????

 

Summary:

 

A reconciliation of on-going environmental levy projects as at 30 June 2012 has now been undertaken.? The reconciliation indicates total revotes in 2012/2013 of $433,401 which is in addition to the $338,000 in annual income from the levy.

 

Notwithstanding, of the projects which have been revoted, there is concern in relation to a number where for various reasons there is little confidence they will be completed in this financial year.

 

In lieu of these projects it is proposed to substitute the following projects which have much higher levels of certainty for completion in this financial year:

 

1??????? Installation of effluent management system at Saleyards $30,000

2??????? Provision of access to Nambucca Heads beach $50,000

3??????? Vegetation mapping $40,000

4??????? Paperless councillors $16,000

5??????? Additional riverbank restoration $70,000

6??????? Prepare/review concept plans for CBD streetscape improvements $20,000

7??????? Additional expenditure on weed control in coastal reserves $15,000

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council endorse the proposed replacement projects for the 2012/2013 Environmental Levy works program and place them on public exhibition for 28 days.

 

2??????? That Council receive a report to establish a rainwater tank rebate under its water fund and that the provisions of the existing rebate scheme be reviewed to achieve a higher take up rate.

 

3??????? That further report/s come to Council on the outcome of the public exhibition and the expenditure of the balance of the revoted funds.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There is concern that much of the environmental levy funding revoted from 2011/2012 will not be spent in the 2012/2013 financial year.? The report proposes a number of replacement projects to achieve increased expenditure of the allocated funding in 2012/13.? It is a matter for Council to determine the projects which are funded under the Environmental Levy.? Council can change the recommended projects and/or add other projects.

 

Council could seek proposals for projects from the Nambucca River Creeks, Estuaries and Coastline Management Committee.? It could also publicly advertise for suggested projects.? Both would be worthwhile initiatives.? However a quarter of the 2012/2013 financial year has now passed and action needs to be taken to achieve the expenditure of revoted funds on environmental initiatives.? It is suggested that Council?s Creeks, Estuaries and Coastline Management Committee consider projects which could be undertaken from the balance of the revoted funds.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

At Council?s meeting on 27 September it was resolved that:

 

?This matter be deferred to 10 October 2012 so that Council may receive a full report on existing programs, continuing programs and projects.?

 

Council last assessed the Environmental Levy works program at its General Purpose Committee meeting on 19 October 2011.? At that meeting it was resolved that:

 

1??????? That Council endorse the break up used to identify the Rural and Rural Residential component of the Environmental Levy for the purposes of this report.

 

2??????? That Council endorse the draft 2012-2017 Environmental Levy Program for inclusion in the draft Integrated Planning and Reporting documents for exhibition purposes.

 

3??????? That at the conclusion of the exhibition process a further report be presented to Council on any submissions received and any amendments proposed for the draft 2012-2017 Environmental Levy program.

 

4??????? That the draft 2012-2017 Environmental Levy include all worthy, but unfunded programs or projects to demonstrate to the community, IPART and the Department of Local Government that the number, range and variety of projects put forward by the community and Council far exceed the income generated further justifying why the Environmental Levy needs to remain as a continuing Levy.

 

5??????? That pending Council?s decision in February 2012 in relation to the Special Rate Variation, that Council utilise the currently unallocated $28,880 identified in the June 2011 budget review from the current Environmental Levy to progress the implementation of an effluent/stormwater management system for the Macksville Saleyards.

 

6??????? That Council remove the Natural Resource Officer from the proposed funded programs.

 

7??????? That Council consider and prioritise the unfunded items in a future report to Council.

 

8??????? That the River Street Foreshore improvements be moved up in lieu of funding for the Natural Resource Officer.

 

When Council called for public submissions (September 2009) of projects the following criteria was used in the advertisement:

 

?Council will apply simple qualifying criteria to each proposed Projects/Programs that can demonstrate clear environmental and or sustainable outcomes, maximisation of environmental levy contributions, partnerships, matching grant funding opportunities and the continuation of previous/current projects?

 

The environmental levy program which was endorsed at the meeting on 19 October 2011 is shown in the attachment.

 

The following table provides some comments on those projects identified in 2012/2013, both funded and unfunded.? Most of the unfunded projects are listed for consideration in subsequent years.

 

2012/2013 ? Draft Environmental Levy Program

 

DESCRIPTION

BUDGET

COMMENT

Continuing Programs/Projects

$338,000 Total

 

Environmental Compliance Officer (Salaries and on costs)

 

$78,000

Position has been made redundant.? Redundancy costs will consume much of the residual allocation for salary and on-costs in 2012/2013.

Implementation of Environmental Improvements at Macksville Showground

$98,000*

WASIP (waste levy) funding of $37,800 has now been provided.? An additional $30,000 is required from the Environmental Levy.

Indian Minor Birds Eradication Program

 

$2,000*

On-going.? Contact to be made with the control team.

Implementation of Nambucca River Estuary Management Plan - including continuation of river bank restoration work

$30,000*

Rock armour of erosion hot spots in Macksville is scheduled to proceed this financial year.

Implementation of works from the Nambucca Coastal Zone Management Plan

$40,000*

Application has been made for $ for $ grant funding for beach access improvements.? The Council will have to commit $40,000.? This funding is in addition to the recently announced $70,000 grant from the NRCMA.

Water Monitoring and River Health Program ? Nambucca River and Estuaries (Includes Oyster water quality sampling)

$25,000*

$10,000 has been committed to water loggers.? Investigation being undertaken in relation to the expenditure of the balance.

Environmental Weed Eradication

 

$15,000

Weeds Officer is preparing a program for expenditure.

Implementation of Environmental Management/Improvements identified in the Nambucca River Foreshore Master Plan

$30,000*

$26,000 allocated for stairs from Shelley track to amenities building at Shelley Beach.? $11,680 allocated to Anzac Park improvements (near RSL/Beer Creek) to undertake rock armour and plantings.? It should be noted that there is also a carry over funding from 2011/2012 of $153,985.

Natural Resource Officer Part Time 3 days/week (project management)

(plus $20,000 recovered from grant funds overhead allocation)

$20,000*

Deleted by resolution on 19/10/2011

 

$338,000

 

Unfunded Optional New Programs/Projects

 

 

River Street Macksville Foreshore Improvements Stage 2

 

$50,000

This project was moved forward in lieu of the Natural Resource Officer ? refer resolution on 19/10/2011.? Has been reduced to $20,000 in 2012/2013 budget.

 

Rebates for Fencing off Riparian Areas (Policy to be developed)

 

$10,000*

No policy has been developed nor have particular projects been identified.? Suggested important small projects for the protection of riparian areas could be managed under the recently developed donations policy.? Landcare or the NRCMA? are both interested in this approach.

Implementation of actions from Deep Creek Flood Study

 

$50,000*

Flood study has been finalised.

Easement/Property Acquisition Seaview St Catchment (Could also be funded from a Stormwater Catchment Levy)

$50,000*

Project has not been the subject of detailed investigation.

Stabilisation of land identified as Unstable Land in Council's Slope Stability Hazard Identification and Land Slip Reports

$50,000*

Project not defined.

Education and Ecotourism ? Sustainability Program

 

$20,000*

No staff capacity to undertake.

Audit and Implement sustainability for Council controlled buildings Stage 1

 

$50,000*

No staff capacity to undertake.

Ground Truthing and Review of Vegetation Mapping

 

$50,000*

Project has been defined and a quote has been obtained.? Given large carry over funding, recommend it be brought forward.? Refer to report in business paper.

Community Grants

 

$10,000

Can be managed under the recently developed donations policy.

Bellwood Causeway Duplication

 

$87,500*

Requires justification

Beach Watch Program Nambucca & Scotts Head

 

$15,000*

The proposal would be to provide public information on pollution levels at beaches (note:? Council can?t afford lifeguards during the September and Easter school holidays)

Water Reclamation Projects

 

$50,000*

Project not defined

Wetland Retention system for Scotts Head ? Aiden Street Reserve

 

$50,000*

Project not defined

Shire Wide Koala Plan of Management Stage 1

 

$50,000*

Recommended that the Vegetation Mapping review be completed first.

Development of the Stuart Island "Harbour"

 

$100,000*

Project not defined

Shire wide Biodiversity Management Plan

$50,000

 

Project not defined

 

$742,500

 

* Possible $ for $ funding


 

A reconciliation of on-going environmental levy projects as at 30 June 2012 has now been undertaken.? The reconciliation indicates total revotes in 2012/2013 of $433,401 which is in addition to the $338,000 in annual income from the levy.

 

The levy has been important in securing grant funding from other levels of government.? For example a review of the Environmental Levy works program in 2010 indicated it had provided $1.46m in revenue for environmental projects since its introduction in 2003.? However this same revenue had also attracted a further $600,000 from various State and Federal Government agencies through $ for $ grant programs.? This is partly the reason for the relatively large annual revote.

 

Notwithstanding, of the projects which have been revoted, there is concern in relation to a number where for various reasons there is little confidence they will be completed in this financial year.? These are:

 

 

Project

Revote + 2012/13 Budget ($)

W1736

Implement foreshore master plan

153,985

W1110

Rainwater tank rebates now funded by Water ? refer IWCM

76,650

W1114

Estuary Management Plan

24,640

W1117

Coastal Hazard Management Plan Stage 2

77,446

 

Total

332,721

 

In lieu of these projects it is proposed to substitute the following projects which have much higher levels of certainty for completion in this financial year.

 

 

Replacement Projects to be completed in 2012/2013

Budget ($)

1

Installation of effluent management system at Saleyards

30,000

2

Access to Nambucca Heads Beach

50,000

3

Vegetation mapping (EEC?s etc)

40,000

4

Paperless Councillors*

16,000

5

Additional riverbank restoration

70,000

6

Prepare/review concept plans for CBD streetscape improvements ? Nambucca Heads & Macksville

20,000

7

Additional expenditure on weed control in coastal reserves

15,000

8

Balance to be the subject of further reports and recommendations

91,721

 

Total

332,721

* some funding may be available from Our Living Coast

 

?A brief explanation of the replacement projects follows.

 

1.? Installation of Effluent Management System at the Saleyards

 

Agreement has been reached for the transfer of the Showground including the Saleyards to the Nambucca River District Agricultural Association.? The agreement for the transfer includes the provision of an effluent management system at Council?s cost.? A suitable system has now been designed.? An application has been lodged with Council and the EPA for approval and quotes have been obtained for its installation.? There has also been consultation with the Nambucca River District Agricultural Association and other Saleyards stakeholders in relation to the proposed system.? The effluent management system will represent a substantial environmental and financial improvement to the previous arrangement or using a contractor to pump out the effluent into a truck for transport and disposal off site.

 

Council has obtained $37,000 in funding from the State Government?s waste levy towards the project.? A further $30,000 is required to complete the project (ie a total cost of $67,000).

 

2.? Access to Nambucca Heads beach

 

Council undertook an inspection of the Nambucca Heads beach in 2012 and heard representations from the Nambucca Heads Surf Life Saving Club that coastal erosion had made it impossible to get an all terrain vehicle or inflatable rescue boat onto the beach.? Vehicular access to the beach is necessary for surf rescue.? A reasonable access grade is also required by people with a disability.

 

Council?s Assistant General Manager ? Engineering Services has considered a design for an access and on the basis of recent similar work has proposed a budget of $50,000.? Subject to reasonable weather, the work can be completed in this financial year.

 

3.? Indicative Vegetation Mapping of Endangered Ecological Communities (EEC?s)

 

A vegetation map for the valley areas of the Nambucca Shire was prepared by Kendall in 2003 using Forest Ecosystems (NPWS 1999) classification applied to 1997 colour aerial photography at a 1:25,000 scale.? A lot has changed since then, both in terms of imagery, forest classification systems and the declared endangered ecological communities.

 

High resolution digital aerial photography is now available from Land and Property Information.? There is also Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) mapping for part of the Shire.? LiDAR provides very accurate measures of the height of vegetation.? Vegetation classification has also improved with a more standardised approach having been developed by the Office of Environment and Heritage.

 

Council has received the attached proposal from the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) for the upgrading of Council?s vegetation mapping.? It is important to note that the mapping will not be a determinative assessment as to whether particular vegetation is an endangered ecological community.? Further flora surveys and assessments will be required for a development application which may impact on a potential endangered ecological community.

 

Part of the reason for this is that EEC definitions are sometimes quite specific.? For example Lowland Rainforest on the NSW North Coast is defined to occur below 600m, so when applying this definition all rainforests below 600m potentially fall into the EEC category.? However the OEH in their mapping program define the different rainforest vegetation types without reference to the EEC determinations.? In Coffs Harbour twelve (12) different rainforest communities were mapped with five (5) occurring in the foothills and/or headlands.? From this information it can be inferred which ones are likely to be candidate EEC?s.

 

OEH have been asked to comment on the adequacy of the proposed ground truthing and the possibility they will not be able to obtain access to private property.? They have provided the following advice:

 

?Regarding ground truthing on private property, it is only necessary to obtain representative samples of the mapping units from either crown land or private property.? (In Coffs Harbour) this was done on a voluntary basis via a letter of invitation to property owners say greater than 5 ha and which have substantial vegetation cover.

 

In relation to adequacy of ground truth plots, this is a valid question and we have tried to strike the right balance between cost and adequacy.? Each option allows for 2 full floristic surveys for each possible vegetation type likely to be encountered, and about 3 rapids for each full floristic site.? In the Coffs Harbour study area rapid data point covered on average 146 ha (117,000ha/800 rapid data points = 146).? Option 1 would be less than this rate with 1 plot having to cover a larger area of 214 ha, and Option 2 & 3 would be better than the Coffs study with 1 plot covering 61 ha.?

 

In summary the mapping will provide property owners and Council with more accurate information as to the potential location of EEC?s arising from both the (State) Threatened Species Conservation Act and the (Federal) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.? By increasing the level of knowledge about the potential location of EECs, more informed decisions can be made in relation to risk and investment.? Equally Council is likely to be more consistent in its development control processes and in so doing will have less risk of issuing an approval which is ultra viries (beyond its powers) and incurring damages and costs which may arise out of that.

 

Following the Federal Government?s listing of Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia as an Endangered Ecological Community, Council resolved to write to the Minister, the Hon. Tony Burke MP (Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) asking what public consultation occurred prior to the determination; requesting whatever mapping the Department has relating to this Shire and if it can be provided to Council; and also asking what assistance can be provided to Council and private land owners for ground truthing to determine definitively where the EEC?s occur.? The response from the Parliamentary Secretary was circulated to Council?s meeting on 27 September 2012.

 

On the basis of the response, Council could defer the project and continue to seek Federal Funding.? However with an equivalent in-kind funding contribution coming from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, it is recommended that the work proceed now.

 

4.? Paperless Councillors

 

Councillors received a demonstration of software called ?Council Dashboard? prior to the scheduled Council meeting on 27 September.? Council Dashboard is a product associated with Council?s existing ?InfoCouncil? electronic business paper and provides for the electronic transmission of business papers to Councillors and senior staff for a software cost of $6,000 per annum for 20 users.? InfoCouncil is integrating with Council Dashboard by adding to the existing ?publish to web? and ?publish to email? functions with a ?publish to iPad? function.? This will cause Infocouncil agendas and minutes to be distributed to iPads registered with Council Dashboard.

 

The documents are pushed out to councillors via a cloud (web based) solution.? Councillors don?t have to figure out how to download documents or remind themselves to do so.? Documents simply arrive and announce themselves.? Secondly, documents published via Council Dashboard are secure.? Even if someone loses their iPad, the documents remain inaccessible to the wrong user, and can be deleted remotely if necessary.

 

Besides business papers there is a considerable amount of mail which is distributed to Councillors.? Currently this mail distribution occurs through printing the electronic document and distributing the copies to the Councillors mail trays.

 

A comparison of the recurrent costs of paper ?v- electronic distribution of business papers and mail is as follows:

 

Paper business papers and mail

$ per annum

Electronic business papers and mail

$ per annum

Printing cost - 32 copies x 23 editions

3,312

Data plan for councillors

2,592

Staff time in printing and postage

2,016

Council dashboard

6,000

Postage cost

1,472

 

 

Other mail (Committees + general mail)

421

 

 

Total

7,221

 

8,592

 

Assumptions:

1.?? page of photocopying costs $0.03

2.?? average of 150 pages in each business paper

3.?? one staff member takes 2-3 hours to print & post each business paper (including Manex review)

4.?? average postage cost is $8.00 per business paper and 8 are posted

5.?? average other mail is 30 pages per week per councillor

6.?? all councillors would have a 1Gb $24.95 per month data plan

7.?? the Council Dashboard software licence is for 20 users for 12 months

 

Besides the recurrent costs indicated there is also the cost of acquiring 12 iPads which are $617 each, a total of $7,404.

 

The rationale for the expenditure being drawn from the environmental levy is the environmental benefit of reducing the Council?s consumption of A4 paper by approximately 112,000 sheets per annum.

 

Further benefits of the proposal are that Councillors will have the flexibility of an iPad for communication and research and will receive their business papers and mail earlier than before.

 

Council may be able to secure some of the required funding from the ?Our Living Coast Project? which had considered a similar initiative.

 

5.? Additional Riverbank Restoration

 

The 2012/13 budget provides for $30,000 for undertaking river bank stabilisation work in Macksville and Bellwood (rock armour).? This funding will not address the substantial sections of riverbank immediately adjoining Bellevue Drive and River Street, Macksville which have eroded up to the edge of the road reservation.? Further erosion will affect the road reservation.? Slumping of the river bank usually follows a significant rain event.? In some instances such rain events will be a declared natural disaster, in which case work to repair the road is mainly funded by the State Government.? However more often significant rain events are not a declared natural disaster which means the council has to fund the cost of the repair work.

 

The proposed preventative work reduces the cost of subsequent work to replace not only the riverbank but also the constructed road pavement.

 

It is proposed that the existing budget of $30,000 be increased by $70,000 to undertake more preventative bank stabilisation (rock armour) work.

 

6.? Prepare/review concept plans for CBD streetscape improvements ? Nambucca Heads & Macksville

 

There is renewed interest in both Chambers of Commerce for streetscape and pedestrian improvements to the Nambucca Heads and Macksville CBD?s.

 

There have been previous investigations into CBD improvements which have not been implemented because of concerns about the availability and arrangement of street parking and cost.? There is a risk that similar issues will be encountered again.

 

Following the success of the recent River Street foreshore improvements in Macksville, and to take advantage of the expressed interest in achieving further improvements, it is proposed to engage a landscape architect to review previous work and put forward some concept sketches for discussion purposes.? If there is general agreement, detailed design and construction could be undertaken from unallocated revotes or future environmental levy funding.

 

7.? Additional expenditure on weed control in coastal reserves

 

Council?s Noxious Weeds Inspector has put forward a program for the expenditure of an additional $15,000 in this financial year on weed control.? Follow up work and maintenance weeding is required in the Swimming Creek, Beilbys and Shelly Beach/V-Wall areas.? Lions reserve (Grassy Park) in Bowraville will require ongoing funding to defeat Mysore Thorn infestations to ensure the area is not taken over once again by this Class 3 weed.

 

At current rates approximately 352 hours of weed control and rehabilitation (plantings etc) could be achieved with $15,000 of funding.

 

Future projects (next financial year and beyond) are planned to Groundsel Bush in an EEC wetland at Valla Beach; Groundsel bush and other weeds on sections of Crown land along Warrell Creek; as well as council owned land to the south of Kingsworth estate which has a heavy infestation of lantana and other weeds.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the Assistant General Manager ? Engineering Services and the Manager Information Technology.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

All of the proposed projects have significant environmental benefits.? Given the number of consultancies/research projects previously funded from the environmental levy, the proposed reallocated funding favours on-ground work.

 

Social

 

There are social benefits in improving the Macksville Saleyards; in improving beach access for rescue equipment and for people with a disability; and also in improving the environment of the CBD?s of Nambucca Heads and Macksville.

 

Economic

 

In relation to the proposed concept plans for CBD improvement works, there is much evidence to link an improved environment with a higher retail turnover

 

Risk

 

The major risk concerns not achieving the expenditure of environmental levy funding revoted from 2010/2011.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The budget impacts are identified in the report.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

28372/2011 - Environmental Levy Program - October 2011

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

Review of Environmental Levy Program

 

2012/2013 ? Draft Environmental Levy Programs

DESCRIPTION

BUDGET

Continuing Programs/Projects

Est $338,000 Total

Environmental Compliance Officer (Salaries and on costs)

 

$78,000

Implementation of Environmental Improvements at Macksville Showground

$98,000*

Indian Minor Birds Eradication Program

 

$2,000*

Implementation of Nambucca River Estuary Management Plan - including continuation of River bank restoration work

$30,000*

Implementation of works from the Nambucca Coastal Zone Management Plan

$40,000*

Water Monitoring and River Health Program ? Nambucca River and Estuaries (Includes Oyster water quality sampling)

$25,000*

Environmental Weed Eradication

 

$15,000

Implementation of Environmental Management/Improvements identified in the Nambucca River Foreshore Master Plan

$30,000*

Natural Resource Officer Part Time 3 days/week (project management)

(plus $20,000 recovered from grant funds overhead allocation)

$20,000*

 

$338,000

Unfunded Optional New Programs/Projects

 

River Street Macksville Foreshore Improvements Stage 2

 

$50,000

Rebates for Fencing off Riparian Areas (Policy to be developed)

 

$10,000*

Implementation of actions from Deep Creek Flood Study

 

$50,000*

Easement/Property Acquisition Seaview St Catchment (Could also be funded from a Stormwater Catchment Levy)

$50,000*

Stabilisation of land identified as Unstable Land in Council's Slope Stability Hazard Identification and Land Slip Reports

$50,000*

Education and Ecotourism ? Sustainability Program

 

$20,000*

Audit and Implement sustainability for Council controlled buildings Stage 1

 

$50,000*

Ground Truthing and Review of Vegetation Mapping

 

$50,000*

Community Grants

 

$10,000

Bellwood Causeway Duplication

 

$87,500*

Beach Watch Program Nambucca & Scotts Head

 

$15,000*

Water Reclamation Projects

 

$50,000*

Wetland Retention system for Scotts Head ? Aiden Street Reserve

 

$50,000*

Shire Wide Koala Plan of Management Stage 1

 

$50,000*

Development of the Stuart Island "Harbour"

 

$100,000*

Shire wide Biodiversity Management Plan

$50,000

 

 

$742,500

* Possible $ for $ funding


2013/2014 ? Draft Environmental Levy Programs

DESCRIPTION

BUDGET

Continuing Programs/Projects

Est $349,000 Total

Environmental Compliance Officer (Salaries and on costs)

 

$82,000

Implementation of Environmental Improvements at Macksville Showground

$101,000*

Indian Minor Birds Eradication Program

 

$2,000*

Implementation of Nambucca River Estuary Management Plan - including continuation of River bank restoration work

$25,000*

Implementation of works from the Nambucca Coastal Zone Management Plan

$50,000*

Water Monitoring and River Health Program ? Nambucca River and Estuaries (Includes Oyster water quality sampling)

$25,000*

Implementation of Environmental Management/Improvements identified in the Nambucca River Foreshore Master Plan

$25,000*

Rebates for Fencing off Riparian Areas (Policy to be developed)

 

$14,000*

Environmental Weed Eradication

 

$5,000*

Natural Resource Officer Part Time 3 days/week (project management)

(plus $20,000 recovered from grant funds overhead allocation)

$20,000*

 

$349,000

Unfunded Optional New Programs/Projects

 

River Street Macksville Foreshore Improvements Stage 2

$50,000

Education and Ecotourism ? Sustainability Program

$10,000*

Implementation of actions from Deep Creek Flood Study

$50,000*

Easement/Property Acquisition Seaview St Catchment (Could also be funded from a Stormwater Catchment Levy)

$50,000*

Stabilisation of land identified as Unstable Land in Council's Slope Stability Hazard Identification and Land Slip Reports

$50,000*

Education and Ecotourism ? Sustainability Program

$20,000*

Audit and Implement sustainability for Council controlled buildings Stage 1

$50,000*

Ground Truthing and Review of Vegetation Mapping

$50,000

Community Grants

$10,000

Bellwood Causeway Duplication

$87,500*

Beach Watch Program Nambucca & Scotts Head

$15,000*

Water Reclamation Projects

$50,000*

Wetland Retention system for Scotts Head ? Aiden Street Reserve

$50,000*

Shire Wide Koala Plan of Management Stage 1

$50,000*

Development of the Stuart Island "Harbour"

$100,000*

Shire wide Biodiversity Management Plan

$50,000

 

 

$742,500

* Possible $ for $ funding


2014/2015 ? Draft Environmental Levy Programs

DESCRIPTION

BUDGET

Continuing Programs/Projects

Est $361,000 Total

Environmental Compliance Officer (Salaries and on costs)

 

$86,000

Implementation of Environmental Improvements at Macksville Showground

$104,000*

Indian Minor Birds Eradication Program

 

$3,000*

Implementation of Nambucca River Estuary Management Plan - including continuation of River bank restoration work

$20,000*

Implementation of works from the Nambucca Coastal Zone Management Plan

$26,000*

Water Monitoring and River Health Program ? Nambucca River and Estuaries (Includes Oyster water quality sampling)

$20,000*

Implementation of actions from Deep Creek Flood Study

 

$10,000*

Implementation of Environmental Management/Improvements identified in the Nambucca River Foreshore Master Plan

$20,000*

Stabilisation of land identified as Unstable Land in Council's Slope Stability Hazard Identification and Land Slip Reports

$40,000*

Rebates for Fencing off Riparian Areas (Policy to be developed)

 

$12,000*

Natural Resource Officer Part Time 3 days/week (project management)

(plus $20,000 recovered from grant funds overhead allocation)

$20,000*

 

$361,000

Unfunded Optional New Programs/Projects

 

River Street Macksville Foreshore Improvements Stage 2

$50,000

Education and Ecotourism ? Sustainability Program

 

$10,000

Easement/Property Acquisition Seaview St Catchment (Could also be funded from a Stormwater Catchment Levy)

$50,000*

Education and Ecotourism ? Sustainability Program

$20,000*

Audit and Implement sustainability for Council controlled buildings Stage 1

 

$50,000*

Ground Truthing and Review of Vegetation Mapping

 

$50,000

Community Grants

 

$10,000

Bellwood Causeway Duplication

 

$87,500*

Beach Watch Program Nambucca & Scotts Head

 

$15,000*

Water Reclamation Projects

 

$50,000*

Wetland Retention system for Scotts Head ? Aiden Street Reserve

 

$50,000*

Shire Wide Koala Plan of Management Stage 1

 

$50,000*

Development of the Stuart Island "Harbour"

 

$100,000*

Shire wide Biodiversity Management Plan

$50,000

 

 

$642,500

* Possible $ for $ funding


2015/2016 ? Draft Environmental Levy Programs

DESCRIPTION

BUDGET

Continuing Programs/Projects

Est $375,000 Total

Environmental Compliance Officer (Salaries and on costs)

 

$89,000

Indian Minor Birds Eradication Program

 

$3,000*

Implementation of Nambucca River Estuary Management Plan - including continuation of River bank restoration work

$25,000*

Implementation of works from the Nambucca Coastal Zone Management Plan

$46,000*

Water Monitoring and River Health Program ? Nambucca River and Estuaries (Includes Oyster water quality sampling)

$25,000*

Implementation of actions from Deep Creek Flood Study

 

$20,000*

Stabilisation of land identified as Unstable Land in Council's Slope Stability Hazard Identification and Land Slip Reports

$80,000*

Implementation of Environmental Management/Improvements identified in the Nambucca River Foreshore Master Plan

$20,000*

Rebates for Fencing off Riparian Areas (Policy to be developed)

 

$15,000*

Natural Resource Officer Part Time 3 days/week (project management)

(plus $22,000 recovered from grant funds overhead allocation)

$22,000*

Ground Truthing and Review of Vegetation Mapping

 

$30,000*

 

$375,000

Unfunded Optional New Programs/Projects

 

River Street Macksville Foreshore Improvements Stage 2

 

$50,000

Easement/Property Acquisition Seaview St Catchment (Could also be funded from a Stormwater Catchment Levy)

$50,000*

Audit and Implement sustainability for Council controlled buildings Stage 1

 

$50,000*

Community Grants

 

$10,000

Bellwood Causeway Duplication

 

$90,000*

Beach Watch Program Nambucca & Scotts Head

 

$15,000*

Water Reclamation Projects

 

$50,000*

Wetland Retention system for Scotts Head ? Aiden Street Reserve

 

$50,000*

Shire Wide Koala Plan of Management Stage 1

 

$50,000*

Development of the Stuart Island "Harbour"

 

$100,000*

Shire wide Biodiversity Management Plan

$50,000

 

 

$565,000

* Possible $ for $ funding


2016/2017 ? Draft Environmental Levy Programs

DESCRIPTION

BUDGET

Continuing Programs/Projects

Est $390,000 Total

Environmental Compliance Officer (Salaries and on costs)

 

$94,000

Indian Minor Birds Eradication Program

 

$2,000*

Implementation of Nambucca River Estuary Management Plan - including continuation of River bank restoration work

$20,000*

Implementation of works from the Nambucca Coastal Zone Management Plan

$35,000*

Stabilisation of land identified as Unstable Land in Council's Slope Stability Hazard Identification and Land Slip Reports

$50,000*

Water Monitoring and River Health Program ? Nambucca River and Estuaries (Includes Oyster water quality sampling)

$20,000*

Implementation of Environmental Management/Improvements identified in the Nambucca River Foreshore Master Plan

$20,000*

Rebates for Fencing off Riparian Areas (Policy to be developed)

 

$20,000*

Environmental Weed Eradication

 

$15,000*

Natural Resource Officer Part Time 3 days/week (project management)

(plus $22,000 recovered from grant funds overhead allocation)

$22,000*

Bellwood Causeway Duplication

 

$92,000

 

$390,000

Unfunded Optional New Programs/Projects

 

River Street Macksville Foreshore Improvements Stage 2

 

$50,000

Easement/Property Acquisition Seaview St Catchment (Could also be funded from a Stormwater Catchment Levy)

$50,000*

Audit and Implement sustainability for Council controlled buildings Stage 1

 

$50,000*

Community Grants

 

$10,000

Beach Watch Program Nambucca & Scotts Head

 

$15,000*

Water Reclamation Projects

 

$50,000*

Wetland Retention system for Scotts Head ? Aiden Street Reserve

 

$50,000*

Shire Wide Koala Plan of Management Stage 1

 

$50,000*

Development of the Stuart Island "Harbour"

 

$100,000*

Shire wide Biodiversity Management Plan

$50,000

 

 

$475,000

* Possible $ for $ funding


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.4????? SF1498??????????? 101012???????? Review of Council Off-Street Parking Requirements

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Grant Nelson, Strategic Planner; Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is for Council to endorse proposed changes to the Nambucca DCP 2010 in relation off-street parking requirements.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That Council endorse the recommended changes to the DCP 2010 car parking provisions for exhibition for a period of not less than 28 days in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

2??????? That each Chamber of Commerce be informed of the proposed amendments to the DCP 2010 particularly in relation to the parking requirements in the CBD areas.?

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may choose not to support or to modify the proposed amendments.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

On 15 December 2011 Council resolved to support an enquiry to waive the shortfall of parking spaces for the redevelopment of an existing building at 22 Wallace Street Macksville for the purpose of health consulting rooms. Further to this on 11 March 2012 Council resolved to ?review its Car Parking Code?. This was the result of the assessment of DA004/2012 for an extension to a medical centre at Bellwood.

 

Council?s DCP 2010 Part C (car parking) has now been reviewed. Given the context of these recent council decisions the review has focused on provisions that are identified as potentially being excessive.

 

This review has drawn on comparable land uses and parking standards provided in planning instruments at Bellingen Shire Council and Coffs Harbour Shire Council which are subject to similar demographic trends, planning regulations, environmental and social characteristics.

 

In general the Nambucca car parking provisions appeared reasonably consistent with our adjoining LGA?s however some significant differences are noted following the brief overview.

 

Bellingen Shire Council ? Parking in the CBD areas

 

Bellingen DCP 2010 contains provisions that allow minor redevelopment of existing premises in the CBD areas to be exempt from any additional parking requirements. Although the same provisions discuss the requirement for contributions to be paid in lieu of providing actual spaces, the Bellingen contributions plan does not require contributions. This means minor re-development of buildings in the CBD areas are generally free from restrictive car parking requirements or costs due to parking deficiencies.

 

A brief discussion with Bellingen planning staff indicates these provisions have allowed new businesses to pursue opportunities without the overheads of parking contributions or design retrofitting to meet car parking requirements. It also allows the CBD areas to maintain their character.

 

The recent addition of Woolworths and associated parking at the southern entrance to Macksville, in association with the enforcement of controlled parking has alleviated some parking pressure around the Macksville town centre. The current situation regarding parking in Nambucca Heads CBD, Bowraville and other villages is less known.

 

Should this approach be endorsed there is a risk that increased business activity in the CBD?s with no change to the parking availability could create parking issues.

 

Equally there is a real risk of taking relatively small contributions for off street parking and not being able to spend the funds within a reasonable period.?

 

It is recommended the following provision be inserted into DCP 2010:

 

Parking requirements for the CBD areas of Nambucca Heads, Macksville and Bowraville (to be defined in figures for the DCP)

 

1.?????? Additional car parking will not be required for re-development in the CBD areas of Nambucca, Macksville or Bowraville except in the following instances:

 

- new development for any of the following land uses: Supermarkets; Hotel and Motel Accommodation; shop top housing; multi dwelling housing; pub; club; community facilities, service stations, vehicle body repair workshop; vehicle repair station; vehicle sales or hire premises or visitor information centre

 

OR

 

any re-development that is expected to create additional traffic in its own right.

 

2.?????? To assist interpretation of item 1, the following land uses would not normally be expected to provide additional car parking:

 

- change of use and minor additions for shops, offices, food and drink premises or health consulting rooms.

 

3.?????? Where a proposed land use is not directly referred to in items 1 or 2 an applicant shall provide justification to Council that the proposed use is not expected to create additional traffic in its own right.

 

Bellingen Shire Council ? Off Peak parking considerations

 

Bellingen and Clarence Valley Councils utilise provisions that allow Council staff to consider reduced car parking requirements for activities undertaken outside of the peak period. For example a restaurant that operates after 6pm each day may be able to demonstrate there is adequate on street or public parking in the vicinity of the proposal.

 

Should this approach be endorsed there is a risk that some business may feel burdened in the supply of car parking.? However, if the CBD redevelopment exemption clause above is adopted, in many cases the off-peak provisions would become redundant.

 

It is recommended Council incorporate the following clause into the DCP 2010.

 

Off-peak parking requirements

 

A proposal that can demonstrate peak demand for parking generated by a development is outside the hours of 8:30am and 5:30pm, and adequate on-street parking is available in proximity to the proposed development may be exempt from the general parking requirements. Applicants are required to justify variations to the general parking requirements under this clause.

 




Health Consulting Rooms

 

Council?s requirement for parking at 22 Wallace Street Macksville referred to previously was approximately 24 spaces (1 space for every 2 employees and 3 spaces for each consultant room). The site had a credit of 11 spaces and potential for 6 additional spaces on site. The shortfall of spaces was at a cost of approximately $54,000 to the potential applicant.

 

Both Coffs Harbour and Bellingen Shires calculate health consulting rooms at a rate of 1 space for every 30m2 or 40m2 respectively. Based on an estimated floor area for the building in Wallace Street the same enquiry in Coffs Harbour or Bellingen Shire would have resulted in a parking requirement of approximately 15 spaces leaving a zero shortfall.

 

It is recommended Council amend the parking rate for Health Consulting Rooms to 1 space per 40m2 GFA.

 

General Offices

 

Coffs Harbour and Bellingen Council both have in place a 1 space per 40m2 for General Office land uses, Kempsey Shire has 1 space 35m2. In comparison Nambucca Council has in place 1 space per 30m2.

 

It is recommended Council amend the parking rate for General Offices to 1 space per 40m2 GFA.

 

Backpackers

 

Bellingen Shire Council requires 1 space for every 10 beds in a backpackers, whereas Nambucca requires 1 space for every 5 Beds (twice as many). The Bellingen rates seem reasonable given backpackers would typically use alternative modes of transport to a single vehicle.

 

It is recommended Council amend the parking rate for Backpackers to 1 space per 10 beds.

 

Gymnasium

 

A gymnasium requires 4.5 spaces per 100m2 in Bellingen Shire, approximately 3 spaces for every 100m2 in Coffs Harbour and 4 spaces per 100m2 in Kempsey Shire. The 7.5 spaces per 100m2 in Nambucca Shire seems excessive in comparison.

 

It is recommended Council amend the parking rate for Gymnasiums to 4 spaces per 100m2.

 

Proposed DCP Amendment

 

Council endorsed a proposed house keeping amendment to the Nambucca DCP 2010 on 28 June 2012. The amendment to the DCP is yet to be exhibited as it is being aligned with a building industry information night to be held in late October. There is an opportunity to incorporate the recommendations of this car-parking review into the draft DCP and exhibit as per Council?s previous resolution.

 

As part of the exhibition process any specific changes to parking requirements in the town centres will be forwarded to each chamber of commerce for consideration.

 

Contributions

 

The contributions plans for Macksville and Nambucca Heads car parking, while sufficient to meet the basic requirements under legislation, are in need of a major review to update the costs, works program and timing of delivery in light of changes which are certain to have occurred since the plans were developed in 2003 (Macksville) and 1999 (Nambucca Heads). This review, however, has taken lower priority than a review of the South Macksville Roadworks Contributions Plan and the development of a proposed change to the Section 94 system used in the Nambucca Shire which would see 12 current contributions plans replaced with one Section 94A Contributions Plan (see separate Council Report by the Development Contributions Officer).

 

The contributions collected against the two plans totalled $70,860 in 2010-2011.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Bellingen Shire Council Staff

Council Planning Staff

General Manager

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

Amending the car parking provisions of Councils DCP is unlikely to detrimentally impact on the natural environment.

 

Social

Parking provisions of Council?s DCP is often seen as hindrance to small business establishment particularly in the CBD areas. Modifying the provisions as proposed may be one option to assist in filling vacant premises. This in turn may positively contribute to the character and vibrancy of the town centres.

 

Economic

The proposed reduction in the parking standards will be a positive economic incentive to businesses wishing to establish in the Nambucca Shire.

 

Risk

As stated previously there is some risk that reducing the parking requirements may have an effect on parking availability in our CBD areas.

 

Equally there is a real risk of taking relatively small contributions for off street parking and not being able to spend the funds within a reasonable period.?

 

Should Council pursue revitalisation of the town centre areas the car parking provisions of the DCP and existing public parking areas may need further refinement/consideration.

 

There is a risk that some business may have concerns that competitors wishing to establish in town may have reduced parking requirements in comparison to the old rates when they established.??

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The budgetary implications are discussed in the report.? A reduction in parking requirements creates a potential liability for Council.? Equally Council has a potential liability in collecting relatively small contributions for off street parking and not being able to spend the funds within a reasonable period.? Council?s General Fund has not got sufficient funds to contribute to the provision of off street parking which would be expected in any contribution plan.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.5????? SF1751??????????? 101012???????? Planning Proposal Nambucca Local Environmental Plan Amendment no. 10

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Grant Nelson, Strategic Planner; Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to ensure subdivision on Lots that contain split zones and different lot size may still be subdivided. This is particularly important in areas fringing Large Lot Residential and Rural Zones to ensure Council?s Local Growth Management Strategy for Rural Residential Land can be implemented in accordance with its recommendations.

 

This report provides the Council with a summary of the results of the exhibition of the LEP amendment and recommends Council proceed with the LEP amendment as proposed.

 

NOTE: This matter requires a ?Planning Decision? referred to in Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requiring the General Manager to record the names of each Councillor supporting and opposing the decision

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??????? That pursuant to Clause 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the Planning Proposal, associated documents and submissions be forwarded to Department of Planning and Infrastructure requesting that they seek the making of the Plan by the Minister.

 

2??????? That those persons/agencies who made submissions be advised of Council's decision.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may choose not to proceed with the LEP Amendment or amend the provisions.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

This LEP amendment will ensure the subdivision on Lots that contain split zones and different lot sizes may still be subdivided.

 

Council resolved to proceed with this LEP amendment on 15 March 2012. A planning proposal was prepared and forwarded to the Department of Planning for Gateway Determination. The Gateway Determination was received on the 8 May 2012 and indicated Council could proceed with the proposed amendment subject to an exhibition period of 14 days and consideration by NSW Rural Fire Service

 

Clause 4.1 of the Nambucca LEP 2010 provides for the subdivision of land in the Nambucca Shire. In brief this clause states that any Lot resulting from the subdivision of Land must not be less than the minimum lots size shown on the Lot Size Maps. This clause is reproduced in full below.

 

Clause 4.1   Minimum subdivision lot size

1??????? The objectives of this clause are as follows:

a??????? to encourage efficient use of land,

b??????? to ensure the subdivision layout is compatible with the desired future character of the locality,

c??????? to ensure land zoned R5 Large Lot Residential is developed in accordance with the Council?s strategic planning framework for Nambucca.

2??????? This clause applies to a subdivision of any land shown on the Lot Size Map that requires development consent and that is carried out after the commencement of this Plan.

3??????? The size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

4??????? This clause does not apply in relation to the subdivision of individual lots in a strata plan or community title scheme.

4A????? This clause does not apply in relation to the subdivision of land in Zone R1 General Residential, R2 Low Density Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential or R4 High Density Residential:

a ?????? if the land contains an existing dual occupancy, or

b??????? for the purpose of erecting an attached dwelling or a semi-detached dwelling, or

c??????? if a single development application is made for the subdivision of the land into 2 lots and for the erection of a dwelling house on each of the 2 resulting lots.

 

On land containing a split zone with two (2) different Lot sizes the residue lot may not meet the minimum size requirements as required by the above clause, in many cases the residue portion may already be below the minimum size required by the Lot Size Map. Arguably, in some instances subdivision of split zoned land may be prohibited as residue allotments may be below the minimum lot size required.

 

The Clause proposed to rectify this issue allows a split zone subdivision to occur subject to a portion of land with the smaller lot size is attached to the residue lot. In a typical Rural Residential subdivision this would mean a 1HA portion of Rural Residential land would be attached to the residue Rural block.?

 

The following clause was drafted in the planning proposal to be incorporated into the Nambucca LEP 2010. It is adapted from similar clauses in other LEP?s approved by the Department of Planning and infrastructure.

 

4.1B?? Minimum Subdivision lot sizes for certain split zones

 

1 ???????? The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

??????????? a ?????? to provide for the subdivision of lots that are within more than one zone and cannot be subdivided under clause 4.1

 

??????????? b ?????? to ensure that the subdivision occurs in a manner that promotes suitable land use and development

 

2 ???????? This clause applies to each lot (an original lot) that contains:

 

??????????? a ?????? land in a residential, village, business, industrial or special uses zone, and

 

??????????? b ?????? land in RU1 Primary Production, RU2 Rural Landscape, E2 Environmental Conservation or E3 Environmental Management zone.

 

3????????? Despite clause 4.1 development consent may be granted to subdivide an original lot to create other lots (the resulting lots) if:

??????????? a ?????? one of the resulting lots will contain:

????????? i ??????? land in a residential or village, zone that has an area that is not less than the minimum size shown on the lot size map in relation to that land or land in a business, industrial or special uses zone that has an area not less the 1000m2; and

 

????????? ii ?????? all of the land in RU1 Primary Production, RU2 Rural Landscape, E2 Environmental Conservation or E3 Environmental Management zone

 

??????????? b ?????? all other resulting lots will contain land that has an area that is not less than the minimum size shown on the lot size map in relation to that land

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Council resolved to proceed with the LEP amendment on 15 March 2012. A planning proposal was prepared and forwarded to the Department of Planning for Gateway Determination. The Gateway Determination was received on the 8 May 2012 and indicated Council could proceed with the proposed amendment subject to an exhibition period of 14 days and consideration by NSW Rural Fire Service.

 

The NSW Rural Fire Service provided no objection to the proposed amendment and the planning proposal was exhibited from the 9 August to the 24 August 2012. During the exhibition period the Council received 1 submission from Mr Stewart Melville [attached], details of the submission (summarised in italics) and a response to matters raised are provided below:

 

1 ?????? The implementation of this proposal is extremely significant and could all too readily lead to citizen dissatisfaction to which they will have no recall. The current case by case approach to community involvement to amendments is not ideal.

 

Response:

 

In regards to the Standard Instrument LEP a number of Local Government Areas have implemented amendments to ensure the standard instrument functions as it is intended. Land use zones and minimum lot sizes were designated during the preparation of the Nambucca LEP 2010 which was subject to a number of related workshops and community meetings. This proposed amendment will ensure these zones and lot sizes can be applied as intended.

 

2??????? Disagree with the proposal being low impact and it lacks accountability.

 

Response:

 

Similar amendments to this proposal have been implemented in various forms by a number of Councils as it is essentially correcting an anomaly with the Standard Instrument LEP which does not provide for lots that contain multiple lot sizes or zones. This is considered the core reason the planning proposal is low impact.

 

Further, Council?s LEP 1995 contained a similar provision 12(2)b which allowed a lot smaller than the required lot size to be created for Rural Residential areas. Proceeding with the amendment would support Councils previous resolutions to apply a best fit transfer from the 1995 LEP into the standard instrument template.

 

3??????? Page numbers not included on proposal therefore validity questioned.

 

Response:

 

Council staff use a template to prepare planning proposals and will ensure future planning proposals include page numbering. However the lack of page numbering would not constitute an invalid planning proposal.

 

4??????? Scotts Head residents have no comprehension of this proposal or Councils plans for the area and until such time this information is presented to the community in a clear and transparent way and receives agreement from the community this proposal should be placed on hold.

 

Response:

 

The complexity of the issue and the existing planning system is not understated in this submission. When originally reported to Council the proposal had to be clarified further and an additional report was prepared to Council. However, it is re stated that this proposal is essentially allowing the zones and lot sizes to be implemented as intended in the LEP 2010

 

A review of the complex existing system is welcomed. The recently released Green Paper which discusses the new planning model to be developed by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure is placing emphasis on community involvement in strategic planning matters.? It may be as a result of this that alternative consultation procedures are proposed.? Nevertheless Council has met its statutory obligations for community consultation under the gateway determination for this proposal.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The proposed LEP amendment will assist implementation of Council Strategies such as the Local Growth Management Strategy for Rural Residential Lands. The proposed amendment is giving effect to zoning and lot size provisions already adopted, therefore the environmental impact of this amendment is limited.

 

Social

 

The proposed LEP amendment will assist implementation of Council Strategies such as the Local Growth Management Strategy for Rural Residential Lands. The proposed amendment is giving effect to zoning and lot size provisions already adopted, therefore the social impact of this amendment is limited.

 

Economic

 

The proposed LEP amendment will assist implementation of Council Strategies such as the Local Growth Management Strategy for Rural Residential Lands. The proposed amendment is giving effect to zoning and lot size provisions already adopted, therefore the economic impact of this amendment is limited.

 

Risk

 

Should Council not adopted the provisions as proposed, planning decisions on split zoned land may be subject legal interpretation and challenge.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no direct budgetary implications.? To the extent that it facilitates additional subdivision, there will be an increase to Council?s rate base.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

21796/2012 - Submission in relation to Planning Proposal - S Melville

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

Planning Proposal Nambucca Local Environmental Plan Amendment no. 10

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.6????? SF1672??????????? 101012???????? 2012/2013 Water and Sewerage Access Charges

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Chris Wills, Rates Officer; Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to advise Council on the impact of ?phasing in? the changes to the charging of Sewer and Water Access Charges and Sewer Usage Charges in the 2012/2013 rating year so as to comply with the Best Practice Management of Water Supply and Sewerage issued in 2007, and also to report on what action has been taken to identify properties that are not being rated at all.

 

The changes resulted in some 35 residential properties receiving a reduction of charges and 103 residential properties receiving an increase in charges.? These figures are based on what would have been charged for the 2012-13 rating year had the restructure not occurred.? There were also 32 single occupancy properties identified with business sewer access and usage charges, which were corrected.

 

One property has been inspected by the Area Health & Building Surveyor following a request by the owner and has been changed back to a single occupancy.

 

Letters have been received from five (5) owners protesting the increases and several others have phoned to enquire about the increases.? As a result 60 letters were sent to those impacted by $400 or more advising that Council would consider the matter and foreshadowed a possible phase-in period

 

Two spreadsheets have been prepared to show the impact on income if phasing-in of the charges is adopted.? Copies are circularised for Councillors.

 

The investigation of properties not being rated or appropriate charges not being applied is an ongoing task made more difficult and protracted by staffing levels in the Rates area.? Whilst staffing in the rates area has not been reduced, there is very limited capacity to undertake major investigations.? Anomalies are being corrected as they are found and a recent investigation of all business category properties connected to the sewer system that were not charged sewer usage uncovered seven properties that were not charged in the 2011-12 year.? The income uncollected was $2,296.

 

The General Manager has delegated authority to appoint temporary staff and it is proposed that consideration be given to the appointment of temporary rates staff to allow the Rates Officer to undertake more auditing of rates and charges.? The challenge will be to secure experienced temporary rates staff as they are in short supply.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1 ???????? That Council ?phase-in? the Sewer Access Charge and Water Access Charge to Dual and Multiple Occupancy residential properties, over two (2) years as follows:

???????????

??????????? i)???? Dual Occupancy where increase is $400 or more ? only the sewer access charge

?????????????????? to be phased-in over two years, and

?????????????????? ii)?????? Multiple Occupancy where increase is $600 or more ? both sewer and water

???????????????????????????? access charges be phased-in over two years.

 

2????????? That amended rates notices be issued to affected rate payers with an explanatory letter.

 

3 ???????? That Council note the on-going nature of investigating rating system anomalies and the General Manager?s proposal to endeavour to appoint temporary rates staff to allow the Rates Officer to undertake more auditing of rates and charges.?

 

 


OPTIONS:

 

Council could choose to let stand the accounts issued for Sewer and Water Access Charges and consider waiving interest charges on overdue rate instalments for the affected properties for the whole year, to lessen the impact where the increased instalment can?t be met in the short term.? This option will have a minimal impact on the budgeted income for 2012-13.

 

Council could choose to phase-in the Sewer and Water Access Charges over two or more rating years to lessen the impact on the owners, noting that this option will have an impact on the budgeted income for 2012-13 and beyond.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Sewer and Water Access Charges:? As advised in the previous report to Council, Sewer and Water Access Charges applied to dual and multiple occupancy residential properties were changed to comply with guidelines issued by the then Minister for Water Utilities and gazetted on 31 August 2007 and concurred with by the Minister for Local Government.

 

Since 2007, it has been Council policy to apply the business sewer access charge together with a sewer usage charge on dual and multiple occupancy residential properties, however this is contrary to the abovementioned Guideline.

 

The changes were implemented in the 2012-13 rate year and resulted in some 35 residential properties receiving a reduction of charges in the order of $17 to $5,762, the average being $652.? These changes have also resulted in 103 residential properties receiving an increase in the order of $14 to $9,091, the average being $719.? These figures are based on what would have been charged for the 2012-13 rating year had the restructure not occurred.

 

The attached spreadsheet titled ?Dual Occupancy Ratepayers with increases of $400 or more? shows details of 37 properties and the impact on them and Council?s income with a phase-in period of two years? on the sewer charge only and the additional water access charge still being applied

 

The net effect/increase on owners and therefore the additional income generated by these changes on these 37 properties was $21,420 (this takes into account removing the business sewer access and sewer usage charges and applying the residential sewer access and water access charge per occupancy).? If we still apply the water access charge per occupancy but phase-in the bigger sewer access charge over two years this will reduce the net increase on owners in the first year to $4,844 but will reduce the Council?s income by $16,576.

 

The spreadsheet titled ?Multiple Occupancy Ratepayers with increases of $600 or more? shows details of 21 properties and the impact on them and the Council?s income with phase-in periods of two years and four years on both the sewer and water access charges.

 

The net effect/increase on owners and additional income generated on these 21 properties was $42,460. A two year phase-in will reduce the net increase on owners in the first year to $5,252 but will reduce Council?s income by $37,208.

 

A four year phase in period would, in the first year, would result in net decreases on owners of $13,351 and reduced income of $55,812; the second year would be the same as the two year phase-in result while the third year would see an increase on owners of $23,856 with a reduction in income of $18,604.

 

The overall impact on Council?s income on a two year phase-in period as outlined would be a reduction of $53,784.? The overall net increase on the 138 properties affected by the application of the Guidelines was $51,193 (this figure consists of an increase of $74,028 on 105 properties and a decrease of $22,835 on 35 properties).

 


Properties not being rated or incorrectly charged:? ?The total Valuer General?s land values for our shire are now balanced to our rate system and therefore all properties are accounted for and rated unless they are exempt under the provisions of the Local Government Act. Each property is categorised according to its use and in our Shire they are either Farmland, Residential or Business.? The Residential and Business categories are further sub-categorised.

 

The application of charges for services such as water, sewer, stormwater, waste, sewer usage, trade waste etc are affected by a range of issues such as whether the property is residential or commercial; vacant or developed, whether it is in an area serviced by town water and sewer etc.? Each property is placed in a Zone which determines the charges that apply to that property.? Errors can occur if a property is placed in the wrong zone as a result of lack of information being provided by other work sections eg, planning, waste management, water & sewer or by oversight or misinterpretation by rate staff.

 

The investigation highlighted in the summary, while identifying 7 properties that were not charged SUC also revealed 14 other charging errors on those properties; these included 1 trade waste annual charge and 1 trade waste usage charge not being applied, 3 water access errors, 2 sewer access errors, 4 stormwater errors and 3 commercial waste undercharges.? The total income lost including the SUC was $5,472.

 

Not all errors are obvious and once suspected it takes time to research and determine the correct charges to apply.? Ratepayers will generally question their rates & charges if they think they may be overcharged but are less likely to bring undercharging to our attention.? Rates staff, when time permits, will question different areas of the rates database to improve the overall integrity of the system and maximise the Council?s revenue gathering potential. Council has 9,602 properties and 6,237 water customers and two full time staff in the rates section, therefore most errors are only corrected when they are highlighted by a ratepayer or identified during other maintenance.

 

The General Manager has delegated authority to appoint temporary staff and it is proposed that consideration be given to the appointment of temporary rates staff to allow the Rates Officer to undertake more auditing of rates and charges.? The challenge will be to secure temporary rates staff as they are in short supply.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Rates Officer

Manager Finance

General Manager

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no identified Environmental impacts associated with this report.

 

Social

 

The changes to the Sewer and Water Access Charges which have resulted in individual increases and the late issue of the 2012-13 Rate Notice does have an impact on our ratepayers and their means of managing the increases and meeting payment obligations.

 

Economic

 

Any phasing-in of the changes to the Sewer and Water Access Charges will have an impact on ratepayers and Council income as highlighted above.

 


Risk

 

Five ratepayers have presented written objections to the increases and as a result a letter was sent to the 60 most impacted of 105 ratepayers who received an increase in charges. Any subsequent change and resulting issues will need to be managed accordingly.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The increases and decreases in the Water and Sewer funds as a result of the new charges has been accounted for in the 2012-13 budget. The only budgetary impacts that may arise will be a result of any changes that Council may wish to implement, such as phasing-in.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

This has been identified and will depend on Council?s decision on phasing-in.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

?- Circularised spreadsheets for Councillors

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

2012/2013 Water and Sewerage Access Charges

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

2012/2013 Water and Sewerage Access Charges

 

 

 

Circularised spreadsheets for Councillors

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.7????? SF430????????????? 101012???????? Endorsement of Flying Fox Plan of Management - Grassy Park, Bowraville

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Jacqui Ashby, Environmental Resource Officer; Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

As part of the approved on-ground works program under the Our Living Coast Project, $40,000 was devoted to the Grassy Park Reserve Flying Fox camp for a Plan of Management and extensive rehabilitation works for both the camp area and the surrounding native vegetation including extensive bank stabilisation. GeoLink was the preferred consultant to undertake the study, as they had extensive experience in preparing plans of management for flying fox camps in NSW. The draft Flying Fox Plan of Management was placed on public exhibition between 22 March and 27 April 2012.

 

At Council?s meeting on the 13 June 2012, it was resolved:

 

1????????? That Council advise the affected residents that submissions of alternate suggestions for the proposed Flying Fox Plan of Management should be with Council by 16 July 2012.

 

2????????? Further, that residents may continue to submit submissions to amend the Flying Fox Plan of Management after that date provided that all proposals are within the relevant legislative framework and that Council will agree to review the adopted Plan following their receipt.

 

3????????? That Council write as a matter of urgency to the Deputy Premier and the appropriate Minister asking whether there are any other appropriate alternatives which could be included in a Plan of Management if and when adopted.

 

There was then a report to Council?s meeting on 26 July 2012 and it was resolved:

 

1????????? That the matter be deferred to an onsite inspection at Bowraville, specifically to look at trees, the species and where they have been planted.

 

2????????? That the State Government be asked to develop a State wide policy to address the issue of flying foxes in NSW and in particular their impact on urban communities.

 

On the 15 August 2012 an onsite meeting was conducted by all available Councillors, concerned residents of Bowraville, Council staff, Landcare staff and a representative of GeoLink. At the meeting it was resolved:

 

1.???????? That following the inspection on 15 August 2012 there be a further report to Council which considers all suggestions put forward at the inspection and responses from residents.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That the buffer zone remain and be managed as such with any vegetation that may attract roosting flying fox to be removed.

 

2????????? That the current plantings in the Buffer zone stay and if any shrub becomes too tall, they be removed and replaced with a smaller species as an adjunct in inhibiting weed growth in accordance with 1. above.

 

3????????? That the Flying Fox Plan of Management for Grassy Park, Bowraville be endorsed.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

That the Flying Fox Plan of Management for Grassy Park, Bowraville not be endorsed

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Flying Fox Plan of Management ? Grassy Park, Bowraville was presented to Council on 15 March 2012 for endorsement for exhibition. The PoM was subsequently placed on public exhibition from 22 March through to 27 April 2012.? There was one submission received during this period and was tabled at the 31 May 2012 meeting.

 

As a result of the motion of the 13 June 2012, two (2) submissions were received.

 

At the meeting of 26 July 2012 it was resolved to write to the Minister to ask for a state wide policy. The reply is attached.? It is noted that OEH support the actions of Council to resolve local issues in Bowraville and support any regional approaches where these involve restoring flying-fox roosting and foraging habitat away from local communities. Further to this, the other resolution of the 26 July 2012 meeting was for an onsite meeting on the 15 August.

 

At the 15 August onsite meeting the question of the management of the buffer zone was raised as there were concerns it may eventually turn into Grey Headed Flying Fox habitat and therefore unable to be maintained as a buffer zone.? The buffer zone has been identified in the PoM and in the section 95 Licence (from the EPA) and therefore will be managed as a dynamic buffer zone to keep the Flying-fox in the core camp. Representatives of OEH have stated that this buffer will always be a buffer and trees grown in the buffer can be cut down if they are deemed to be too tall or do attract roosting Flying Foxes in the future. It states in the PoM that; 'the vegetation community in zone 3a (buffer) does not have any specific conservation significance under any local, state or federal planning instruments'.? Therefore this reiterates that the buffer zone will always be a buffer zone and will be maintained as a buffer zone.

 

In section 9.3 (Zone 3 ? Grassland) it states in order of priority, the broad steps required to achieve recovery within this zone:

 

1???? Undertake ongoing mowing in relevant areas (access pathway)

2???? Reduce the occurrence of weeds which provide weed propagule sources for adjacent forest (vine weeds and Camphor Laurels)

3???? In grassland areas where planting is desired, plant specifically selected pioneer rainforest plant species at moderate density to encourage the fast development of a canopy and maintain the plantings in a weed free state until canopy development has reduced light levels enough to suppress weed growth. (it is noted FF do not like dense foliage as they cannot land and can become entangled).

 

The question of the heights of some of the plantings in the buffer zone was raised.? These species were from the recommended list in the Vegetation Management Plan (VMP). These species planted densely will not reach the maximum height.? At the onsite meeting it was discussed that if any tree was likely to become too tall then it would be removed.? This is a viable request and OEH concurs. Money from the environmental levy could be used for this at a later stage, if further future funding was not successful. The current spread of species foliage cover will help inhibit weed growth and therefore reduce the labour costs in the long term.

 

Several letters were received after the onsite meeting and are attached. One letter explains the Coffs Harbour issue and how the buffer zone has reduced the anguish caused by the Coffs Creek Flying-fox camp.

 

On the 18 September 2012 an OEH representative and Council's Environmental Resource Officer visited the site to check the progress of works under Council's s95 Licence.? Advice from OEH is attached.

 

The PoM sets out to restore, without expanding, the current flying-fox core camp habitat by removing weed species and creating a buffer zone to discourage roosting nearer residences. This buffer zone is critical for residences at the interface of the camp.


CONSULTATION:

 

Mayor and all Councillors

Director Environment and Planning

General Manager

GeoLink

Nambucca Valley Landcare Inc

Coffs Harbour City Council

Bellingen Shire Council

Billy Roberts (Flying Fox specialist)

Office Environment and Heritage

The community of Bowraville

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

Grassy Park houses a Flying Fox Camp, more than likely due to its proximity to the limited food supply in the surrounding areas and perhaps the lights of the adjoining residential area.? Managing the camp within all relevant legislation is difficult due to the many requirements and restrictions that apply.

 

Social

The intent of the works done and planned is to alleviate the difficulties of living near a large camp. The PoM helps set out the works to be done.

 

Economic

If the conflict between the residents and the camp is not alleviated, then there is potential for economic loss.

 

Risk

Council is faced with irreconcilable conflict between the requirements of the current legislation and the views of many of its residents.

 

Council is also faced with a financial risk if it resolves not to endorse the PoM with the funding authority withdrawing its funding for the PoM, requiring Council to fund the Plan from its own resources.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

Any variation for the PoM will be from the environmental levy

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Grant funding will be identified into the future for the life of the PoM.

Attachments:

1View

24050/2012 - Response regarding flying foxes on behalf of Minister for Environment

0 Pages

2View

22057/2012 - Letter of support - M Syratt

0 Pages

3View

21556/2012 - Letter of Support - C Bonnici

0 Pages

4View

24872/2012 - Letter of support - P Wilkinson

0 Pages

5View

25181/2012 - Letter of advice - M Hamill

0 Pages

6View

25245/2012 - OEH comments on the progress of works at Grassy Park, Bowraville

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

Endorsement of Flying Fox Plan of Management - Grassy Park, Bowraville

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

Endorsement of Flying Fox Plan of Management - Grassy Park, Bowraville

 



Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

Endorsement of Flying Fox Plan of Management - Grassy Park, Bowraville

 

From:NSC Website[SMTP:noreply@pagemind.org]

To:council[SMTP:council@nambucca.nsw.gov.au]

Received-Date:20120821

Received-Time:4:14:37 AM

Sent-Date:20120821

Sent-Time:4:14:33 AM

Subject:Question Asked Tuesday, August 21 2012 at 2:14:33 PM

 

Question:

--------

 

regarding revegetation management at Grassy Hill in Bowraville

 

 

 

My Contact Details

------------------

 

Name: Camilla Bonnici

Email: millyb23@yahoo.com

Phone: (043) 886-8742

Fax:

Customer Address: Attention General Manager

33 Bowra Street

Bowraville, 2449

20/07/2012

Attention General Manager, Mayor and Councillors,

I am writing as a resident of five years living close by to the flying fox colony near Grassy Hill in Bowraville.? I am writing to in support of the removal of weeds and the revegetation that has been done there over the last two years.

We wish the area next to the houses, ?the Buffer Zone? to remain revegetated with local native species and that the replanting be complete with the lower, shrubby species.? We request that it is stated in the Management Plan that this area be managed as a ?Buffer Zone? (i.e. not part of the core Flying Fox Camp) thus exempting Council from any possible restrictions on lopping in the future.

 

It is very important that my family and I have access to a natural, bushy area close to home.? Apart from Goldie?s Park, two kilometers over other side of town, there is no-where else we can walk away from the built up suburbs in Bowraville.? We have visited the area almost daily for years now, watching the birds come in after the weeds were removed, enjoying the natural scenery and observing the plants grow.? It would be very sad to see it cleared and returned to weeds.

 

Please consider bank erosion and weed control if the area is cleared, bulldozed and grassed. Please also consider the importance of a low, bushy environment for the native wildlife (excluding the flying foxes), my family and others in the community to enjoy in Bowraville.

 

Thank you so much for you consideration in this matter,

 

Sincerely,

Camilla Bonnici

Preferred Contact Method

------------------

Email: on

Fax:

Phone:

Post:

No response necessary:

-------------------------------Safe Stamp-----------------------------------

Your Anti-virus Service scanned this email. It is safe from known viruses.

For more information regarding this service, please contact your service provider.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

Endorsement of Flying Fox Plan of Management - Grassy Park, Bowraville

 

From:Michael Coulter[EX:/O=NSC/OU=NSCDOMAIN/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=MICHAELC]

To:Jacqui Ashby[SMTP:Jacqui.Ashby@nambucca.nsw.gov.au]

Cc:Loreto Wright[SMTP:Loreto.Wright@nambucca.nsw.gov.au]

Received-Date:20120924

Received-Time:4:22:17 AM

Sent-Date:20120924

Sent-Time:4:22:15 AM

Subject:Flying Foxes

 

Jacqui

 

Please attach this email to your report to Council.

 

Loreto

 

Please place in trim.

 

thanks

 

Michael Coulter

General Manager

Nambucca Shire Council

PO Box 177 Macksville NSW 2447

Direct: (02) 6568 0200

Mobile: 0409 153 788

Web: HYPERLINK "http://www.nambucca.nsw.gov.au/"www.nambucca.nsw.gov.au

Nambucca Valley ~ Living at its best

 

 

  _____  

 

From: pierre wilkinson [mailto:pierre_nambuccatkd@hotmail.com]

Sent: Monday, 24 September 2012 2:08 PM

To: Michael Coulter

Subject: Flying Foxes

 

 

To the General Manager and all Councillors,

 

 

 

BAT MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

 

 

Dear Council Staff,

 

                                    Please could you ensure that a copy of this letter is presented to the Council meeting in October. It is in reply (20.09.12) to a missive the previous week ( 13.09.12) in the Guardian News concerning the ?Bat Colony? and the ?Bat Management Plan?.

 

 

 

 

 

Dear ?name and address supplied and withheld by request?.

 

I am not surprised that you requested that your name and address be withheld as you also withheld factual information and honest observation.

 

The four councillors that you lambast as not being representative of the residents of the community were in fact voted in precisely because they care more for our environment and the long term viability of our ecosystem than the four whose virtues you extol.

 

The bat management plan does not seek to expand the existing colony further into residential or recreational areas. It actually is designed to control the colony and encourage the flying foxes to keep a greater distance from the houses in its vicinity.

 

 To that end, the roosting trees have been replaced with low growing, unsuitable for bats species which will establish a buffer between the colony and the human population.

 

Bats are creatures of habit and tend to return annually to their place of birth, and their present location is one such long standing nursing colony.

 

Human encroachment on their habitat has forced them into overcrowded and untenable conditions, not the other way around.

 

The bat presence in Macksville a while ago was a direct result of cyclones devastating their food sources further north, creating a flying fox traffic jam. Roosting, especially nursing, is not conducive to mangrove environments, though they do like to feed there.

 

Bellingen and Coffs Harbour have successfully implemented satisfactory accommodation arrangements for their flying fox colonies, which may I remind you precede human habitation in their precincts.

 

Your insistence that Bat Management Plans are an expensive failure underlines your total ignorance on the subject and are an abject failure of you to recognise the essential part that flying foxes play in our overall ecology.

The funds provided for bat management came from submissions written by our Council staff to various caring government agencies, not rates as you incorrectly surmise.

Finally, this issue should finally be put to rest, but not as you suggest.

 

We humans must learn to live in harmony with our planet and fellow inhabitants, as custodians not destroyers.

 

I suggest that you attend the public forums where members of NPWS and CMA representatives have provided truths and facts, before you disseminate more of your emotive incorrect opinions.

Pierre Wilkinson,

209 Allgomera Road Eungai Creek, 2441.

It is with gratitude that I acknowledge the work done by Jacqui Ashby and the Nambucca Shire Council in augmenting a plan of management in relation to the flying fox colony in Bowraville, with the Land Care offices instrumental in organising a rehabilitation of the area where the bats have a nursing colony on occasion.

 

It is vitally important that these creatures are recognised as being an intrinsic part of the ecology of our environment and that they are allowed to continue their presence in our area.

 

An information session was held by members of the NPWS detailing the necessity of harbouring these animals and I believe that these facts should be presented to dissenting councillors prior to their opinions being voiced, in order to ensure that the issue is not clouded by emotive and incorrect reasoning.

 

Thanking you, I remain, Pierre Wilkinson.

 

 

-------------------------------Safe Stamp-----------------------------------

Your Anti-virus Service scanned this email. It is safe from known viruses.

For more information regarding this service, please contact your service provider.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

Endorsement of Flying Fox Plan of Management - Grassy Park, Bowraville

 

From:Margaret Hamill[SMTP:mhamill_oz@msn.com]

To:council[SMTP:council@nambucca.nsw.gov.au]

Received-Date:20120926

Received-Time:4:22:50 AM

Sent-Date:20120926

Sent-Time:4:22:47 AM

Subject:attention jackie ashby - Discussing relocation Flying Foxes

 

I offer some information from recent Coffs Harbour experience of the following situation

 

A new private housing estate was approved and developed surrounding a long-term (100 years or more) flying fox camp

 

Many of the new residents were extremely hostile to the bats, and on one occasion were noticed by wildlife carers deliberately disturbing the camp by roaring engines of motor bikes and other vehicles

 

Carers attempting to rescue grounded mothers and young were harassed and threatened by resident vigilantes

 

Police and Council were initially slow to act

 

However Council eventually commissioned an extensive report and recommendations, which were accepted by Council and residents and have now been substantially implemented. These focus on creating a buffer zone around the camp, and replanting appropriate vegetation in the separate zones.

 

At the same time, National Parks Rangers conducted education sessions at local primary schools, emphasising the importance of the bats to eucalypt regeneration, and particularly koala habitat

 

This two-pronged approach has resulted in much diminished hostility, and reduced numbers of bats in care.

 

Details were, and I assume still are, on CH Council's website.

 

Hoping this aids a fruitful discussion of the Bowraville situation

 

Sincerely

 

Margaret Hamill

  

 

 

 

 

Margaret Hamill

HYPERLINK "mailto:mhamill_oz@msn.com"mhamill_oz@msn.com

mob 0423 900 535

120 / 1 Regatta Drive

Valla Beach  NSW  2448

 

 

 

 

-------------------------------Safe Stamp-----------------------------------

Your Anti-virus Service scanned this email. It is safe from known viruses.

For more information regarding this service, please contact your service provider.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

Endorsement of Flying Fox Plan of Management - Grassy Park, Bowraville

 



Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.8????? SF112????????????? 101012???????? Christmas Holidays Closure - 2012-2013

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Joanne Hudson, Manager Human Resources; Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

The report makes recommendations in relation to arrangements for the 2012-2013 Christmas/New Year period.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1??? That Council close the Administration Centre for the period Monday 24 December 2012 to Tuesday 1 January 2013 (inclusive) noting that emergency services will be on-call in regard to essential services.

 

2??? That Council endorse Thursday 27 December 2012 as Union Picnic Day public holiday for employees who are financial members of the unions.

 

3??? That Council conduct only one Ordinary Meeting in December which will be Wednesday 12 December at 8.30am and two meetings in January being Wednesday 16 January and Thursday 31 January 2013.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The options available to Council are:

 

1????????? Remain open for business during the period between Christmas and New Year;

 

2????????? Close the Administration Centre only; or

 

3????????? Close the Administration Centre and some or all of the following worksites: Depot, Waste Facility, Libraries and Visitor Information Centre.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

For some time now, Council has closed the Administration Centre between Christmas and New Year. Solicitors and developers normally take this period as a holiday break and the number of customer enquiries in years prior to closing has been minimal. There have been no formal complaints received or issued raised in relation to Council?s Administration Centre closing between Christmas and New Year.

 

This year the gazetted public holidays fall on Tuesday 25 and Wednesday 26 December and Tuesday 1 January 2013. In addition, employees who are financial members of the union are entitled to an additional public holiday (Union Picnic Day) on Thursday 27 December 2012. It is therefore proposed to close the Administration Centre between Monday 24 December 2012 and Tuesday 1 January 2013, re-opening Wednesday 2 January 2013.

 

Employees will be required to take paid leave for the shut down period.

 

The closure will be advertised in the local media.

 

It is proposed that Council?s Libraries, Depot, Waste Facility and Visitor Information Centre remain operational through the Christmas-New Year period, except for public holidays.

 

 


CONSULTATION:

 

Consultative Committee

MANEX

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

No environmental implications as emergency services are still available.

 

Social

 

Staff based at the Administration Centre will not be accessible during the close down period. However, emergency services will be available and other worksites will remain open.

 

Economic

 

Nil.

 

Risk

 

No risk implications as emergency services are still available.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no impact as staff are required to take paid leave.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.9????? SF321????????????? 101012???????? Missabotti Community Centre Committee of Management Extraordinary Meeting - 9 September 2012 - Minutes

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Monika Schuhmacher, Executive Assistant ????????

 

Summary:

 

The report acknowledges an extraordinary meeting of the Missabotti Community Centre Committee of Management and the new Committee which was held on 9 September 2012 in order to elect office bearers after some unexpected resignations.? Copies of the Minutes of this meeting are copied at the end of this report.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council endorse minutes of the Committee of Management for the Missabotti Community Centre?s extraordinary held on 9 September 2012.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no real options.? Council needs voluntary Committees of Management to manage recreation and community facilities across the Nambucca Valley.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The AGM of the Missabotti Community Centre Committee of Management was held on Wednesday 7 July 2012 and reported to Council on 15 August 2012.? Due to unexpected resignations of some committee members and extraordinary meeting was conducted and the new Committee members for 2012/2013 are:

 

????????? President??????????????????????? June Owen

????????? Vice President???????????????? Diana Trilsbach and Dawn Kennedy

????????? Secretary??????????????????????? Karen Bindoff

????????? Treasurer ??????????????????????? Marnie Moran

????????? Events Manager?????????????? Brian Creevy

????????? Shed Manager???????????????? Mick Moran

????????? Maintenance Manager????? Adrian Weir

????????? Committee Members:?????? John Owen, Tina Holmes, Lisa Milner, Jack Craig, Leonie Bird,

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Betty Moran and Kerry Smith

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There was no consultation.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no risk implications.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no financial implications.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There are no implications for working funds.


 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.10??? SF308????????????? 101012???????? Donnelly-Welsh Playing Fields Committee of Management - Annual General Meeting - 2 September 2011 - Minutes

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Monika Schuhmacher, Executive Assistant ????????

 

Summary:

 

The report acknowledges the minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the Donnelly-Welsh Playing Fields Committee of Management, which was held on 2 September 2011, and the new Committee.? A copy is attached.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council endorse the minutes of the Committee of Management of the Donnelly-Welsh Playing Fields Annual General Meeting which was held on 2 September 2011 and that Council thank the outgoing Committee for their work in 2011/2012.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no real options.? Council needs voluntary Committees of Management to manage recreation and community facilities across the Nambucca Valley.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The AGM of the Donnelly-Welsh Playing Fields Committee of Management was held on 2 September 2011.

 

The Committee of Management for 2012/2012 consists of:

 

Chairman & Treasurer??????????????? Terry Baldwin

Secretary????????????????????????????????? Chris Welsh

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation in preparing this report.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications on the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications


Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no risk implications.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no financial implications.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no variance to working funds.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

24812/2012 - Minutes of Donnelly Welsh Playing Fields AGM - 2 September 2011

0 Pages

2View

24949/2012 - Treasurers Report for AGM held 2 September 2011

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

Donnelly-Welsh Playing Fields Committee of Management - Annual General Meeting - 2 September 2011 - Minutes

 




Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

Donnelly-Welsh Playing Fields Committee of Management - Annual General Meeting - 2 September 2011 - Minutes

 






Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

General Manager

ITEM 9.11??? SF318????????????? 101012???????? Macksville Senior Citizens Centre Committee of Management - Annual General Meeting - 23 February 2012 - Minutes

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Monika Schuhmacher, Executive Assistant ????????

 

Summary:

 

A report acknowledging the minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the Macksville Senior Citizens Centre Committee of Management, which was held on 23 February 2012 was put to Council at its meeting on 30 August 2012.

 

Council resolved : That the Committee of Management be requested to provide Council with a copy of the financial statements which they provide to the Office of Fair Trading, as an incorporated association.

 

The Macksville Senior Citizens Centre Committee of Management has now forwarded a copy of its financial statement for the year ending 30 September 2011 for Council?s information?copy attached.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the Macksville Senior Citizens Centre Committee of Management?s financial statement for the year ending 30 September 2011.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no real options.? Council needs voluntary Committees of Management to manage recreation and community facilities across the Nambucca Valley.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

There was a perception by some Committee members that since the Centre?s Financial Statements are provided to the Department of Fair Trading there was no need to submit them to Council.? However, the General Manager explained that Councillors would like to be appraised of the financial standing of Committees, some of which are incorporated associations and that by obtaining the Treasurer?s report or a copy of the audited statements is the best means of doing this.

 

The informal release of information is encouraged under the NSW Government information (Public Access) Act.? This is requested of all of Council?s many Section 355 Committees of Management.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been no consultation in preparing this report.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications on the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications


Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no risk implications.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no financial implications.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no variance to working funds.


 

?MINUTES OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE SENIOR CITIZENS CENTRE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT HELD 23 FEBRUARY 2012 AT THE SENIOR CITIZENS CENTRE, PRINCESS STREET, MACKSVILLE.

 

Attendance:

Members:? Betty Merrifield, Bill Shepherd, Rita Newman, Robert Bassett, John Bishop, Ethol Cole, Phyllis Gaddes, Alec Merrifield, Julie Rouse, Mavis Ward.

 

VISITOR:???? Hazel Shepherd

 

Apologies:??????? Fay Mueck, Catherine Shepherd, Maureen Shepherd, Doug Sim, Maude Ward, Ellie Young, Stan Young, June Bishop, Audrey Crichton, Phyllis Dawson, Kay Donnelly, Jane Keast, Phyllis Kent.?

1.?????? Meeting was declared open at 2.00 pm by Chairperson Betty Merrifield. Betty welcomed our visitor.

2.?????? The minutes of the previous meeting were read and accepted.??

Moved:? Betty Merrifield?? Seconded: Phyllis Gaddes?? Carried

3.?????? Business arising from previous meeting:?? Nil

4.?????? COMMITTEE AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR THE SENIOR CITIZENS CENTRE COMMITTEE OF ?? MANAGEMENT 2012/2013:

 

????????? Moved:? Rita Newman?? Seconded: Bill Shepherd?? Carried

 

That the Executive of the Senior Citizens Centre Inc Macksville be the Executive for the Senior Citizens Centre Committee of Management, for 2012/2013 and remaining members be committee members ? PO Box 212 Macksville NSW 2447.

 

EXECUTIVE:

 

President:??? Betty Merrifield

Secretary:??? Bill Shepherd

Treasurer:???? Rita Newman

Hall Coordinator: John Bishop

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Robert Bassett, Audrey Crichton, Julie Rouse, Phyllis Gaddes, Stan Young

 

5.?????? It was reported that the Senior Citizens Centre is currently utilised daily by 9 permanent users and numerous casual users.? The Centre is furnished and maintained internally by the Senior Citizens Centre Inc Committee.? All tenant style expenses including, utilities, telephone, cleaning and minor maintenance are also paid by the Senior Citizens Centre Inc Committee through fundraising activities and hire contributions by all users.? In addition the Senior Citizens Centre Inc Committee maintains a Public Liability Insurance Policy which covers their members and casual users of the facility.? All other permanent users have their own public liability insurance policies.

 

6.?????? It is noted that no financial activities take place with this committee of management therefore there is no Statement of Income and Expenditure and Balance Sheet.

 

7.???????? The meeting closed at 2.35 pm.

 

BETTY MERRIFIELD ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bill Shepherd

CHAIRPERSON??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Secretary

FEBRUARY 2012????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? FEBRUARY 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

23735/2012 - Financial Statement for year ended 30 September 2011

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

Macksville Senior Citizens Centre Committee of Management - Annual General Meeting - 23 February 2012 - Minutes

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.12??? SF313????????????? 101012???????? Eungai District Community Council - Committee of Management AGM - 4 September 2012

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Monika Schuhmacher, Executive Assistant ????????

 

Summary:

 

The report acknowledges the Annual General Meeting of the Eungai District Community Council Committee of Management which was held on 4 September 2012, and the new Committee.? Copies of the Minutes of this meeting and the Financial Statement are attached.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council endorse minutes of the Committee of Management for the Eungai District Community Council Annual General Meeting held on 4 September 2012, and thank the outgoing Committee for their work in the past twelve months.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no real options.? Council needs voluntary Committees of Management to manage recreation and community facilities across the Nambucca Valley.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The AGM of the Eungai District Community Council Committee of Management was held on Tuesday 4 September 2012.

 

The Committee of Management for 2012/2013 is:

 

????????? President??????????????????????? David Hall

????????? Vice Presidents?????????????? Lizette Pickering and Sarah Landers

????????? Secretary??????????????????????? Margaret Smith

????????? Treasurer ??????????????????????? Mandy Foley

????????? Committee Members:?????? Anne Marie Ladegaad (Bookings) Marlon Branford and Phillip Smith

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There was no consultation.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 


Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

There are no risk implications.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no financial implications.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There are no implications for working funds.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

24509/2012 - Minutes of AGM held 18 September 2012

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

Eungai District Community Council - Committee of Management AGM - 4 September 2012

 




Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.13??? SF344????????????? 101012???????? Warrell Creek Hall Committee of Management AGM - 5 September 2012 - Minutes

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Monika Schuhmacher, Executive Assistant ????????

 

Summary:

 

The report acknowledges the Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the Warrell Creek Hall Committee of Management and the new Committee.? Copies of the Minutes of this meeting, held on 5 September 2012, and the Financial Statement are attached.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council endorse the Minutes of the Committee of Management for the Warrell Creek Hall?s Annual General Meeting held on 5 September 2012 and thank the outgoing Committee for their work in the past twelve months.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no real options.? Council needs voluntary Committees of Management to manage recreation and community facilities across the Nambucca Valley.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Annual General Meeting of the Warrell Creek Hall?s Committee of Management was held on Wednesday 5 September 2012.

 

The Committee of Management for 2012/2013 comprises:

 

????????? President??????????????????????? Ray Williams

????????? Vice President???????????????? Helen Searle

????????? Secretary??????????????????????? Robyn Wood

????????? Treasurer???????????????????????? Julie Roberts

????????? Booking Officers????????????? Julie Roberts

????????? Committee Members??????? Shane O?Neill, Patsy Whalen, Tracey Welsh, John & Thelma McInnes

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There was no consultation.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no economic implications.

 

Risk

 

This report poses no risk to Council.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no financial implications.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There are no implications for working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

24049/2012 - Minutes of AGM held 5 September 2012 - Warrell Creek Hall COM

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

Warrell Creek Hall Committee of Management AGM - 5 September 2012 - Minutes

 






Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.14??? PRF54????????????? 101012???????? Boulton's Crossing (Gumma) Reserve - Camping Fees

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council staff are now receiving regular enquiries about the use of the Reserve and the applicable camping fees.? The contractor/volunteer who collects the camping fees is also being hampered by the lack of signage indicating the applicable fees.

 

A review of camping fees at similar facilities has been undertaken.? For designated NSW school holidays it is proposed to increase the camping fee of $12 per site per night to $20 per site per night.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1.?????? Camping fees at the Boulton?s Crossing (Gumma) Reserve be maintained at $12 per site per night, except for designated NSW school holidays when the camping fee will be $20 per site per night.

 

2.?????? That a suitable sign be erected at the Boulton?s Crossing (Gumma) Reserve indicating the camping fees and other rules for use of the Reserve (eg, no dogs, maximum stay of 1 month, no unoccupied vans or campsites etc.)

 

3.?????? That the changes to camping fees be advertised in Council?s block in the Nambucca Guardian News and also on Council?s website.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The Committee of Management is not operating.? Council has discretion as to the camping fees which are charged.

 

Council could choose to advertise the proposed charges for comment, however none of Council?s existing Committees of Management advertise changes to their charges.

 

It is proposed that there be an advertisement in Council?s block indicating the increase in charges during the school holidays.? The charges will be displayed on Council?s website and the proposed sign to be erected at the Reserve.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council is aware that the Committee of Management for the Boulton?s Crossing (Gumma) Reserve is not active and for the time being the operational management of the Reserve is being undertaken by Council staff and contractors.? Council last dealt with the Reserve at is meeting on 26 July 2012, the minutes for which are as follows:

 

Motion:???? (Flack/Smyth)

 

1??????? That Council formally terminate the Gumma (Boulton?s Crossing) Section 355 Committee of Management and the General Manager report to Council on operating arrangements for the Reserve including reviewing the camping fees; arrangements for the collection of camping fees; and signage in the reserve.

 

2??????? That in the event Council cannot obtain sufficient funding to replace the amenities and upgrade the septic system from the current funding round of the Public Reserves Management Fund, the Gumma (Boulton?s Crossing) reserve be closed to camping.

 

3??????? That the Department of Lands, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Member for Oxley, the Hon. Andrew Stoner MP be advised of Council?s intention.

 

Amendment:?????? (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

That Council defer a decision on this matter and make urgent representations to the Deputy Premier (the Hon Andrew Stoner MP) for assistance in resolving the issues.

 

The amendment was carried and it became the motion and it was:

 

?3462/12 Resolved:????? (Ainsworth/Finlayson)

 

That Council defer a decision on this matter and make urgent representations to the Deputy Premier (the Hon Andrew Stoner MP) for assistance in resolving the issues.

 

Council has received the attached interim response from the Hon. Andrew Stoner MP, Deputy Premier.? A funding application for the replacement of the amenities has been made under the Public Reserves Management Fund.? At the date of preparing this report, there had been no determination made as to the success or otherwise of Council?s application.

 

Approximately 18 months ago a sign indicating camping fees at the reserve was either removed or washed away by a flood.

 

Council staff are now receiving regular enquiries about the use of the Reserve and the applicable camping fees.? The contractor/volunteer who collects the camping fees is also being hampered by the lack of signage indicating the applicable fees.

 

Prior to considering a replacement sign and posting information about camping fees on Council?s website, a review has been undertaken of the camping fees charged at Boulton?s Crossing compared to similar primitive camping grounds in Northern NSW..

 

The following table provides a comparison of fees for camping grounds with similar facilities which are accessible to 2 wheel drive vehicles.? Most of the comparison primitive camping grounds are operated by the National Parks and Wildlife Service.? Farquhar Inlet on the Manning River is the notable exception.


 

Comparison of Fees for Primitive Camping Grounds

 

Camping Ground

Facilities

Fees

Boulton?s Crossing (Gumma) Reserve - NSC

Toilets, drinking water, rubbish removal

$12 per site.? No limit on persons per site.? Fees usually collected twice per week.

Farquhar Inlet (Manning River) ? Dept. of Lands

Toilets, BBQs, no drinking water, no rubbish removal

Site defined as 4 persons.? $11 per night during low season and $20 per night during school holidays.? Additional person $2.50.

Diamond Head campground in Crowdy Bay National Park - NPWS

Toilets, no drinking water, cold showers, BBQ?s, picnic tables

$10 per adult per night, $5 per child per night, plus a daily vehicle fee of $7 or annual pass.

Apsley Falls campground in Oxley Wild Rivers National Park

Toilets, picnic tables, BBQ?s, no drinking water

$5 per adult per night.? $3 per child per night.

Dangars Gorge campground in Oxley Wild Rivers National Park

Toilets, picnic tables, BBQs, drinking water

$10 per adult per night.? $5 per child per night.

Melaleuca camping ground ? Limeburners Creek National Park

Toilets only.

$10 per adult per night.? $5 per child per night.

Point Plomer camping ground ? Limeburners Creek National Park

Toilets, picnic tables, BBQ?s, cold showers, no drinking water.

$10 per adult per night.? $5 per child per night.? Plus an annual pass or daily vehicle entry fee of $7.

Illaroo campground ? Yuraygir National Park

Toilets, picnic tables, BBQ?s, drinking water

$10 per adult per night.? $5 per child per night.

Lake Arragan and Red Cliff campgrounds ? Yuraygir National Park

Toilets, picnic tables, BBQ?s, drinking water

$10 per adult per night.? $5 per child per night.

Hungry Gate campground ? Hat Head National Park

No facilities

$5 per adult per night.? $3 per child per night.? Plus an annual pass or daily vehicle fee of $7.

Smoky Cape campground ? Hat Head National Park

Toilets, picnic tables, BBQ?s, no water

$5 per adult per night.? $3 per child per night. Plus an annual pass or daily vehicle fee of $7.

Black Rocks campground ? Bundjalung National Park

Toilets, picnic tables, BBQs, no water

$10 per adult per night.? $5 per child per night.? Annual pass or daily vehicle entry fee of $7 also required.

Woody Head campground ? Bundjalung National Park

Toilets, picnic tables, BBQ?s, drinking water, cold showers

Minimum site fee of $28 applies covering 2 adults.? Additional adults are $14, additional children are $7.? Off peak rates also apply.

Bald Rock campground ? Bald Rock National Park

Toilets, picnic tables, BBQ?s, no drinking water

$7 per adult per night.? $3.50 per child per night.

 

In terms of fixing camping fees for the Boulton?s Crossing Reserve, the following factors should be considered:

 

?????? There are increased costs in managing peak school holiday periods, through call outs by Council staff and contractors.

?????? Fees are currently collected on two occasions per week.? There is a reasonable likelihood that short stay motor homes, caravans and campers will not pay at all.? Depending upon the future of the camping ground, the frequency of fee collection should be reviewed.

?????? If the camping ground remains open, there needs to be considerable expenditure on replacing the amenities and septic system.? The current camping fees do not cover the cost of this depreciation.

?????? The difficulty of counting ?heads? at camping sites

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with the contractor/volunteer who currently collects the camping fees.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

There are no significant social implications.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

 

The risks concerning the Boulton?s Crossing (Gumma) Reserve have been discussed in previous reports to Council.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The proposed increase in camping fees during school holidays will increase camping revenue.

 

The proposed sign will cost approximately $500 and will be met from the Committee?s funds which are now in Council?s control.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

There is no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

20410/2012 - Response from Andrew Stoner MP

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

Boulton's Crossing (Gumma) Reserve - Camping Fees

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.15??? SF544????????????? 101012???????? Section 94 Status Report

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Colleen Henry, Grants and Contributions Officer; Michael Coulter, General Manager ????????

 

Summary:

 

This report proposes the adoption of a new approach to collecting Developer Contributions, the use of Section 94A, which would reduce the administrative and financial management burden caused by s.94 Developer Contributions regulations.????

 

 

Recommendations:

 

1??????? That Council note the intention to develop a Section 94A contributions plan.

 

2??????? That a draft Section 94A contributions plan be submitted to Council no later than early 2013 to enable a draft works schedule to be advertised with the draft 2013/2014 Operational Plan.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

That Council decide not to adopt the recommendation and the current Development Contributions system remains in place.

 

REPORT

 

Background

 

At the request of the General Manager, the Development Contributions Officer has prepared this report on an alternative approach to developer contributions which could reduce the administrative and financial burden on Council of managing its 15 Section 94 plans.

 

The following table provides a comparison of the three mechanisms available to collect developer contributions.

 

Mechanism

This mechanism is likely to be best when:

 

Direct contributions (s.94) Monetary contribution, dedication of land free of cost, provision of a material public benefit

 

 

???? In urban release areas and major urban renewal precincts.

???? In areas where growth is faster and higher levels of contributions are able to offset the considerable administration costs, financial risks and inefficiencies of managing money amongst and within the funds;

???? In areas with multiple owners who are unable to co-ordinate in offering dedications or provision of material public benefit;

???? Where the Council can access supplementary funds to meet the non-development demand for the infrastructure included in the contributions plan.

 

Indirect contributions

(s.94A)

Monetary contribution only

 

???? In areas where both the rate, and the infrastructure impacts, of future development is difficult to predict (eg rural areas)

???? Where the provision of infrastructure benefits a dispersed set of contributors;

???? Where the resources to manage the development contributions system are limited;

???? In areas with multiple ownership with little scope for land dedications or provision of a material public benefit as alternatives to paying a monetary contribution;

???? Where the costs of needed infrastructure are relatively low and spread over time.

 

Planning agreements

 

???? In relation to a major development site or precinct that is owned by a single land owner or a consortium of land owners

???? Where the owner or owners have an incentive to be directly involved in the delivery of community infrastructure

???? Where the owners agree to be involved in the provision of public infrastructure rather than just community infrastructure

???? Where the owners want to provide community infrastructure additional to, or at a higher standard than, what has been specified in the contributions plan

???? A Council and developer can, by negotiation achieve different and better or more innovative outcomes than can be achieved by imposing direct or indirect contributions

???? Where a developer wants to package different contributions into one instrument (for example, section 80A(1)(f) works requirements, provision of material public benefit offered by an applicant, monetary contributions and the dedication of land).

 

 

This report puts forward the case for developing and implementing a s.94A plan which would levy a set tax on development across the Shire with some administrative, financial and legislative benefits as discussed below.?

 

DISCUSSION

 

Key Points of Difference

 

Nexus

The Section 94 development contributions framework is based on key principles, one of which is ?nexus? ? the relationship between the expected types of development in that catchment area and the demonstrated need for additional public facilities created by those developments. The requirement to satisfy nexus is one of the core components of a valid contributions plan and is required under the EP&A Regulation.

 

Section 94A was introduced to allow appropriate development contributions to be levied in areas such as rural and regional areas where it is difficult to determine the expected types of future development, the rate at which development will occur, or where it will occur. In all these cases, it is difficult to prepare a contributions plan that authorises the collection of contributions on development because of the nexus between development and increased demand for public amenities which must be demonstrated. Under s94A, these difficulties do not exist because instead of a contribution, a levy or tax is charged, which is a flat percentage of development cost and there is no requirement under the Act to connect the development with the expenditure on facilities.

 

All development is able to be levied, including additions and ancillary structures.

 

Administrative and financial requirements

Under s.94A a contributions plan is still required, however the plan is much less detailed and much easier to manage administratively and financially due to the fewer requirements under the Act. In the plan, a map is provided which shows an estimate of the specific public amenities and services proposed to be provided by the Council, supported by a works schedule which estimates the cost and project staging. The implementation of works is straightforward as Council staff simply work their way down the list to provide the facilities that have been identified. When projects are completed they are removed from the list and new projects are added.

 

Levy limits

There is a maximum rate of 1% of the cost of construction of a development, although a lower rate may be set, and the s94A plan must clearly set out the rates. The Regulation sets out what can and cannot be included in the cost of a development; for example the cost of land cannot be included in the cost of construction of a development.

The cost levels and their associated levy percentage are:

 

Cost of development

Maximum Percentage

$100,000 or less

No levy allowed

$100,001 to $200,000

0.5%

$200,001 and above

1%

 

Council can exempt certain types of developments at its discretion. Some examples include: low income housing, works undertaken for charitable purposes by registered charity, places of worship, hospitals, emergency services, childcare facilities and other community or educational facilities.

 

A s.94A levy cannot be charged on a development which has been the subject of a condition under s.94 in a previous development consent relating to the subdivision of the land on which the development is to be carried out.

 

Potential future approach

 

If Council approved a move to the use of s.94A, the following steps would be taken:

 

Developing and implementing the plan

Council?s Development Contributions Officer would develop the plan in conjunction with the General Manager, Engineering Services and Community and Corporate Services staff and the Strategic Planner. A key part of the plan is the works schedule, which would require the identification of prioritised works across the Shire and include roads, traffic improvements and community facilities. This would be done using existing planning and management documents such as the Asset Management Strategy, Delivery Program and Operational Plan, and Community Strategic Plan as well as consultation with relevant staff.

 

The draft plan would come to Council for consideration and approval before being publicly exhibited and comments received. The final plan would be endorsed by Council and come into effect following a final advertising period notifying the public of its endorsement.

 

The following existing s.94 plans would be repealed and all funds associated with those plans would be pooled:

 

?????? Bald Hill Roadworks

?????? Car Parking Bowra Street, Nambucca Heads

?????? Car Parking Macksville

?????? Community Facilities and Open Space DC Plan 2008 ? 2013

?????? Hyland Park Road

?????? Project Administration

?????? Rural Roads Needs Study

?????? Scotts Head Road/Grassy Head Road Intersection

?????? Surf Lifesaving

?????? Upper Warrell Creek Road Overbridge

?????? Valla Beach Road Overbridge

 

The following plans would continue to operate under S.94 as it relates to a specific area with an identified infrastructure requirement:

?????? Bellwood Local Roads

?????? Smiths Lane Local Road and Traffic Infrastructure Developer Contribution Plan 2010

?????? South Macksville Roadworks

?????? Mines and Extractive Industries

 

The legislation allows all existing s.94 funds associated with repealed plans to be pooled and used for the purposes of the new plan which takes their place, as long as the projects identified in the s.94 plans are included in the new works schedule. Using the amounts available in 2011-2012 financial year, this would result in a pooling of funds totalling $1,361,619.

 

Changing business processes

The move would require changes to Council?s business processes in the way that the development levy is set. The levy is payable as a condition of development consent, on affected development applications. Because the levy is calculated on the cost of development, the cost of each development must be determined before the levy is set. The Regulation provides a detailed list of what constitutes the cost of development. The value of the works must be provided by the applicant at the time of the request and independently verified by a registered quantity surveyor at cost to the applicant.

 

Administrative savings will come from the reduced amount of time spent by the Council?s Accountant in apportioning Section 94 contributions to different accounts, as well as reduce the amount of time the town planner and other staff spend on calculating the costs. Currently the relevant s.94 charges run to nine pages in the Council?s Fees and Charges document.

 

Other considerations

The Valla Urban Growth Area would be dealt with under a s.94 contributions plan, as it is a greenfields development site.? Once planning for this area progresses, a s.94 plan would be developed in conjunction with Council?s Strategic Planner and Engineering Services staff.

 

The NSW Government is currently reviewing the State?s planning laws and there is a possibility that the Development Contributions system will change substantially in the short to medium term, which would do away with the current structure and implement a new way of collecting contributions. It is unclear what transitory arrangements would be required between the new system and the old.

 

Summary

 

Benefits of s.94A

?????? Calculation of developer contributions would be simplified. Instead of 15 possible categories of contributions to choose from there would be a choice of two depending on location. If the development application were in one of the three areas subject to s.94 (South Macksville, Bellwood or Smiths Lane currently) the development contribution required under one of those plans would be charged. If the development occurred outside a s.94 catchment, then the s94A levy would be applicable.

 

?????? All types of development can be levied, including commercial, retail, residential and industrial and therefore there is greater scope to collect money for public infrastructure. For example, a $1m industrial development would provide $10,000 in income whereas under s.94, there would probably be no contribution.

 

?????? There would be no need for a separate Local Roads Contribution Plan, which is currently required and could cost Council up to $12,000 to prepare if it approved the Developer Contributions Officer recommendation to hire a consultant to assist in the preparation of this plan.

 

?????? There would be no need to review the Community Facilities and Public Open Space Plan (due next year), the Surf Life Saving Plan (due this year) and the bulk of the other plans (most of which have not been reviewed for 10 years).

 

?????? The financial management of funds would be much easier as one account would be drawn from to complete the projects in the works schedule as they moved up the list of priorities. Coordinating the expenditure of funds from different sources would no longer be required as there would only be one account which could be used.

 

?????? Costs are transparent ? it is immediately clear what is being charged as a levy and how the money will be used.?

 

?????? The s.94A process shifts the cost of providing community infrastructure and roads to the owners of the actual development, rather than the land developer. This could reduce the costs of land development, which in theory could increase development rates and therefore overall growth of the Shire.

 

?????? The contributions levy system is not subject to appeal so there is significantly less risk in the charges being challenged.

 

?????? Some customer service benefits could arise, such as developing a ?ready reckoner? for Council?s website which would enable applicants to calculate their costs independently.

 

Risks of s.94A

?????? There is a risk of collecting less money as the levy is only applicable to developments which cost more than $100,000. For Nambucca Shire, with its low development rate and its generally lower cost of housing and commercial and retail development there is likely to be less money generated in the immediate future. In compiling this report, the Contributions Officer looked at s.94 contributions calculated for DA consents in 2010 and 2011 and then the amount of contributions that would have been collected under s.94A for the same two years. There was a shortfall of approximately $100,000 under the s.94A scenario.

 

?????? Anecdotal evidence from Kempsey Shire, which implemented a s.94A plan for South West Rocks is that very little money has been collected under that plan, which has been in effect since December 2007.

 

?????? Any development that has paid a contribution under s.94 cannot be subsequently charged under s.94A, therefore all approved development under s.94 will be exempt. This may require extra diligence on the part of officers calculating developer contributions in the short to medium term, as well as create a gap in contributions collected for some time.

 

?????? Whilst private certifiers are legally obliged to impose s.94A contributions, there will need to be education of certifiers operating in the area as well as auditing of some approvals to ensure that contributions due to Council are received.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

Accountant

Strategic Planner

Senior Town Planner

Mid North Coast Group of Councils ? Developer Contributions Group

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There are no environmental issues as a result of this report.

 

Social

There are no social issues as a result of this report.

 

Economic

The use of s.94A shifts the cost of the development of community infrastructure to the builder/owner of the development and not the developer of the land.

 

Risk

There is a risk that the overall amount of contributions collected will be less than that collected under the current system, however this risk is balanced by the reduced costs of administration and financial accounting.? When the time required to undertake the financial management of contributions plans, their on-going review and the use of specialist consultants is taken into account, the risk is substantially lessened.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The adoption of a s.94A plan and the associated repeal of relevant s.94 plans could create a short period whereby the volume of contributions are reduced due to the fact that any development approved under s.94 cannot be charged under the new regime. Therefore only new DAs occurring outside the Bellwood, South Macksville and Smiths Lane areas will be able to charged contributions.

 

The move to s.94A will enable most of the current s.94 funds to be pooled and used for the completion of the new works schedule which will be part of the new s.94A plan.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Not required.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ??


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.1??? SF1719??????????? 101012???????? Report on Minutes of the Access Committee meeting 24 July 2012

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Coral Hutchinson, Manager Community and Cultural Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

The minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 24 July 2012 are attached for Council?s information and endorsement.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the minutes of the Access Committee meeting held 24 July 2012 be endorsed.?

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? Endorse the minutes and their recommendations

2??????? Not endorse the minutes

3??????? Endorse the minutes with revised recommendations

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Nothing specific required in this instance as the minutes provide background information.? Further, most of the business of the July meeting was in regard to matters for future meetings.? In regard the thank you letter to Bananacoast Credit Union, this has now been sent as the matter had already been endorsed by Council.?

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Nothing specific undertaken.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no issues identified.

 

Social

 

There are no issues identified.

 

Economic

 

There are no issues identified.

 

Risk

 

The Committee wishes to promote proactive risk management by identifying potential problems and bringing them forward for appropriate action.

 

 


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

Nil

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

Nothing required.

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

22370/2012 - Minutes - Access Committee - 24 July 2012

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

Report on Minutes of the Access Committee meeting 24 July 2012

 

PRESENT

 

Cr E South (Chairperson)

Cr A Smyth

Ms Alba Sky

Ms Naj Hadzic

Mrs Fiona Henwood

Mrs Shirley Holmes

Mr Les Small

Dr Dorothy Secomb

Ms Patricia Walker

Mrs Lyndel Bosman

 

 

 

APOLOGIES

 

Ms Margaret Hutchinson

Ms Coral Hutchinson

Mr Keith Davis

Mr Peter Shales

 

Director Environment and Planning Report

ITEM 3.1????? SF1719????????????? 260612????? Confirmation of Minutes of Meeting held 26 June 2012

1/12 RESOLVED:?? (Holmes/Smyth)

 

That the Committee confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held Tuesday 26 June 2012 as an accurate record of the meeting.

 

 

 

ITEM 3.2????? SF1719????????????? 260612????? Report on Business Arising from previous meeting held 26 June 2012

2/12 RESOLVED:?? (Smyth/Holmes)

 

That the business arising be noted.

 

 

ITEM 3.3????? SF1719????????????? 260612????? Report on correspondence to the Access Committee meeting of 26 June 2012

 

The items of correspondence were noted.

 

ITEM 3.4????? SF1719????????????? 260612????? Report on General Business and Matters of Interest 24 July 2012

1????????? Ageing Well Expo, Coffs Harbour Ex-services Club Wednesday 29 August 2012

 

The committee decided to catch the Community Transport bus to the Ageing Well Expo.? A preliminary transport booking has been made and interested members are:? Shirley Holmes (+ chair), Dorothy Secomb, Elaine South, Keith Davis, Peter Shales, Margaret Hutchinson, Anne Smyth and Coral Hutchinson.? Final details to be circulated.

 

2????????? Information for Older Veterans, War Widows, Ex-service community

 

The information day on 21 August 2012 at Macksville Ex-services Club was noted.

 

3????????? Distribution of Mobility Map and Brochure for Holiday Makers

 

Discussion was held regarding the need for changes to the Mobility Map and more maps to be printed.? Shirley Holmes observed tourists at the Information Centre and noticed there were no maps left, only the brochure.

 

3/12 Resolved:?? (Smyth/Henwood)

 

That copies of the map be made available for review at the September meeting for feedback and suggested updates.

 

4????????? Review of Mobility Parking Scheme

 

The review was again noted for members to follow up as they wish. It was also noted that it is only enforceable on Council properties.

 

5????????? Pedestrian Access Management Plan (PAMP)

 

Discussion was held regarding the footpath near the water towers which should be repaired/replaced in the next budget round.? Cr Smyth to investigate planned path and repair/works program and bring to September meeting.

 

6??? Taxi Rank in Nambucca Heads

Discussion held on need for a taxi rank in the main street of Nambucca Heads.

RESOLVED: (Holmes/Henwood)

That the need for a taxi rank in Bowra St Nambucca Heads be discussed at the September meeting of the Access Committee to ensure improved access for elderly and disabled people.? The Committee requests clarification of the parking rules/regulations from a Council staff member who is on the Traffic Committee.

 

7?? Sympathy Card

 

It was noted that Pam Thoroughgood passed away last week.

RESOLVED: (Smyth/Holmes)

That a sympathy card be sent to the family of Pam Thoroughgood on behalf of the Access Committee.

 

8.?? Feedback on access issues

Discussion was held regarding the lack of feedback from Council after requests for access improvements.

 

RESOLVED: (Henwood/Secomb)

That Council provide information to the Access Committee regarding the Council?s policy and procedures for responding to enquiries and complaint letters they receive from the public.

 

9.?? Scooters

Discussion was held regarding the safety, education and awareness that is needed for scooter drivers in the region.

 

10. Thank you Letter to BCU

It was noted that the step has been removed, therefore enabling access, at the Banana Coast Credit Union ATM in Nambucca Heads.

 

RESOLVED: (Smyth/ Secomb)

That a thank you letter be sent to BCU for improving access to BCU ATM at Nambucca Heads.

 

11. Rest stop in Supermarkets

Members discussed the need for Woolworths, IGA and Foodworks to have a chair in-store for the elderly and disabled people.

 

12. Litter and Safety Sign

 

Patricia presented a ?litter and safety? sign for feedback from members.? The sign is proposed for town entry points, and Gordon, Bellwood, Valla, and BORS parks.? Members thought the sign to be a good idea, good colour tone,? and a positive message.? The large number of existing signs was also raised as an issue.?

There are a number of processes to go through before a sign is approved included contacting any relevant park management committees.???

 

13.???? Travelling with Disabilities ? How the Tourism Industry Responds

 

An article about the Mercure Hotel in Hobart launching Australia?s first disability hotel rooms designed for travellers with vision and hearing impairment was tabled.? Members briefly discussed the significance and importance of hotel rooms being accessible to all travellers.? Dorothy spoke of some of her experiences from her travels overseas.?

Members decided that the discussion be continued at the next meeting in September, and that a copy of the article be included with the minutes.

 

 

NEXT MEETING DATE

 

The next meeting will be replaced by a visit to the Ageing Well Expo in Coffs Harbour on Wednesday 29 August 2012.

 

The next official meeting will be held on Tuesday 25 September 2012 commencing at 2.00 pm.

 

CLOSURE

 

There being no further business the Chairperson then closed the meeting the time being 4:10 pm.?

 

 

 

 

????????????

CR ELAINE SOUTH

(CHAIRPERSON)

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.2??? SF1719??????????? 101012???????? Report on Minutes of the Access Committee meeting 25 September? 2012

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Coral Hutchinson, Manager Community and Cultural Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

The minutes of the Nambucca Shire Council Access Committee meeting held 25 September 2012 are attached for Council?s information and endorsement.? The minutes contain the following recommendations for Council?s attention:

 

1.???????? That the Mobility Map, and Access and Disability Information for Visitors brochure, be updated for continued use with distribution via Visitor Information Centre and throughout tourist establishments.

 

2.???????? That the request from Macksville-Scotts Heads Surf Life Saving Club Inc be supported, and that the beach wheelchair be given to the organisation on the condition that it becomes responsible for all future maintenance, management and insurances.

 

3.???????? That Council write to Woolworths in Macksville to enquire as to their position regarding the disability toilet and access to it by the public, noting that this has been an issue in the past and further, that a very elderly shopper was recently told that it was a staff toilet and not available for her to use.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1.???????? That the Mobility Map, and Access and Disability Information for Visitors brochure, be updated for continued use with distribution via Visitor Information Centre and throughout tourist establishments.

 

2.???????? That the request from Macksville-Scotts Heads Surf Life Saving Club Inc be supported, and that the beach wheelchair be given to the organisation on the condition that it becomes responsible for all future maintenance, management and insurances.

 

3.???????? That Council write to Woolworths in Macksville to enquire as to their position regarding the disability toilet and access to it by the public, noting that this has been an issue in the past and further, that a very elderly shopper was recently told that it was a staff toilet and not available for her to use.

 

4.???????? That the remaining minutes of the Access Committee meeting held 25 September 2012 be endorsed.?

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1??????? Endorse the minutes and their recommendations

2??????? Not endorse the minutes

3??????? Endorse the minutes with revised recommendations

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Mobility Map, and Access and Disability Information for Visitors brochure

 

These in-house publications provide information for visitors to the Shire regarding where to find suitable services for older people and people with disabilities eg, accessible toilets, medical facilities, equipment.? It will be a relatively simple process to update and distribute them.

 

Beach Wheelchair ? request by Macksville-Scotts Head Surf Lifesaving Club Inc

 

Currently the wheelchair is housed at the Council Administration Centre.? It was purchased many years ago from community fundraising and handed over to Council in 2005 in an attempt to make it more accessible to the public.? At the time, Council wrote to Chambers of Commerce, Surf Clubs and like organisations to see if there was somewhere close to the beach where it could be housed.? At the time Macksville-Scotts Heads Surf Club expressed an interest, however some members were not entirely convinced that they could manage it.? In the absence of an alternative arrangement, Council then set up a loan system and have housed the chair ever since.? This has been a reasonable arrangement as it has ensured that the chair is available to the community however access is limited to business hours and the chair is not easily transported.? The chair is used on average for 2 weeks per year (mostly at Christmas) and would possibly be used more if the difficulties in getting it to/from the water were reduced.?

 

The proposal to house the chair at Macksville-Scotts Head Surf Club has merit for the following reasons:

 

1????????????? Lack of storage at Council requires the wheelchair to be permanently located in the foyer ? a temptation for children to treat it as a toy, it also takes up valuable room.

2????????????? The chair cannot be easily transported ? it requires either a large van or trailer, or partly dismantling.? A family who was wanting to take the chair to the beach for a day out would possibly need to take 2 trips.? A permanent location where it could remain intact and wheeled directly onto the beach is ideal.

3????????????? The Club is a community-based organisation.

4????????????? Access to the chair would be improved as it is currently not available outside business hours or between Christmas and New Year when Council offices are closed; whereas the Surf Club has a live-in caretaker on-site.? In addition, Council could assist with promoting access to the chair eg via its Access and Disability Information for Visitors brochure and website.

5????????????? Should the chair be given to the Club, the members may be in a position to replace it down the track; although it is extremely durable and hard wearing and likely to remain in use for some years to come if cared for properly.

6????????????? The Club has an outdoor shower for easy removal of saltwater as per recommended maintenance.? This is not possible at the Council Administration Centre.

7????????????? Council already has the necessary documentation to cover loaning, correct use etc and these could be given to the Club for their adaptation and use.? There are also some spare parts.?

8????????????? Scotts Head beach usually presents suitable conditions for the chair?s use eg smooth continuous path of travel, small waves and shallow entry/exit.? The alternatives for housing the chair near the water are limited.? Whilst Valla Beach has some areas where the chair could be used, there is nowhere convenient to house it.? On the other hand, although there is a Surf Club at Nambucca Heads, the beach is unsuitable for the chair due to the dumping waves and rocks.

 

Any points against the proposal, in my view are outweighed by the advantages.? Locating the chair at Scotts Head is possibly a negative, but as noted above it is also a strong positive depending on who wishes to use it and when.?

 

Should Council agree, the Macksville-Scotts Head Surf Club will be advised that they would become wholly responsible for the chair?s maintenance, policies around its use and all relevant insurance.? I believe the Club is well placed to cover all these.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Nothing specific undertaken.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There are no issues identified.

 


Social

There are no issues identified.

 

Economic

There are no issues identified.

 

Risk

The Committee wishes to promote proactive risk management by identifying potential problems and bringing them forward for appropriate action.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

Nil

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

Nothing required.

 

Attachments:

1View

24183/2012 - Minutes - Access Committee - 25 September 2012

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

Report on Minutes of the Access Committee meeting 25 September? 2012

 

PRESENT

 

Cr E South (Chairperson)

Ms Fiona Henwood

Cr A Smyth

Mrs Shirley Holmes

Mr Peter Shales

Mr Les Small

Mr Keith Davis

Dr Dorothy Secomb

Ms Coral Hutchinson

Ms Lee-anne Funnell

Ms Julie Capararo (NV Phoenix)

 

 

APOLOGIES

 

Ms Margaret Hutchinson

Ms Alba Sky

 

 

 

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 3.1????? SF1719????????????? 250912????? Confirmation of Minutes of Meeting held 24 July 2012

ReSOLVED: (hoLMES/SOUTH)

 

That the Committee confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held Tuesday 24 July 2012 as an accurate record of the meeting.

 

 

 

ITEM 3.2????? SF1719????????????? 250912????? Report on Business Arising from the Minutes of the previous meeting held 24 July 2012

ReCOMMENDATION: (HOLMES/SECOMB)

 

That the Mobility Map, and Access and Disability Information for Visitors brochure, be updated for continued use with distribution via Visitor Information Centre and throughout tourist establishments.

 

RESOLVED:? (DAVIS/HOLMES)

 

The Committee noted the Requests and Complaints Policy does not require acknowledgement of correspondence as standard practice; and therefore decided that the matter of acknowledging correspondence be referred to the General Manager and then to the appropriate staff for consideration.

 

The Committee noted without formal resolution, that the Ageing Well Expo was well worth attending and made specific note of excellent presentations by Ita Buttrose and Colleen Cartwright, the very comprehensive stalls and displays (including accessible clothing!), and that vacating the auditorium improved access for all.? It was also noted that a larger auditorium would be good (the live broadcast to adjacent room was appreciated) to give everyone the opportunity to engage in question-time.?

 

 

ITEM 3.3????? SF1719????????????? 250912????? Report on Correspondence

Recommendation: (davis/secomb)

 

1?????? That the items of correspondence and related actions be noted.

 

2?????? That the request from Macksville-Scotts Heads Surf Life Saving Club Inc be supported, and that the beach wheelchair be given to the organisation on the condition that it becomes responsible for all future maintenance, management and insurances.

 

 

 

ITEM 3.4????? SF1719????????????? 250912????? Report on General Business and Matters of General Interest

Recommendation: (smyth/south)

 

That Council write to Woolies in Macksville to enquire as to their position regarding the disability toilet and access to it by the public, noting that this has been an issue in the past and further, that an very elderly shopper was recently told that it was a staff toilet and not available for her to use.

 

In regard to DA 2012/11, Residential Subdivision, the Committee makes the following comments:

 

1.? The need to plan for an ageing population.

2.? Footpaths to be constructed throughout with a minimum width of 1 metre and compliance with Australian Standards.? Noting that cycleway width is the optimum.

3.? Provision of bus shelters with seating as per relevant standards.

4.? The development is to be supported by public transport and the infrastructure to support it.

5.? That pedestrian crossings, refuges and traffic calming be provided in Alexandra Drive taking into account the location of bus stops.

6.? IF the access road is approved, it is to have proper footpath provision taking into account the needs of motorised scooters.

7.? There is still a need to decrease pedestrian and vehicle conflict in Bellwood Road, particularly at the highway end.

 

???

 

NEXT MEETING DATE

 

The next meeting will be held on Tuesday 23 October 2012 commencing at 2.00 pm.? (Note:? Fiona Henwood will be an apology.)

 

 

CLOSURE

 

There being no further business the Chairperson then closed the meeting with the time being 3.25 pm.?

 

 

????????????

CR E SOUTH

(CHAIRPERSON)

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.3??? SF1709??????????? 101012???????? DA's and CDC's Received and Determined Under Delegated Authority from 15-28 September 2012

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Lorraine Hemsworth, Business Service Coordinator ????????

 

Summary:

 

For Council?s information, below are listed Development Applications and Complying Development Applications received by Council and applications determined under Delegated Authority.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the Development Applications/Complying Development Applications received and determined under delegated authority.

 

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED FROM 15 - 28 SEPTEMBER 2012

 

DA Number

Application Date

Applicant/Owner

Development

Address

Estimated Value

2012/113

19/09/2012

Anne Fawcett

Bed & Breakfast Facilities

Lot 12 DP 864296

0

2012/114

24/09/2012

Mick Brooks Building Design

Dwelling Additions

Lot 21 DP 244537, 1 Buchanan Street, Valla Beach

80,000

2012/115

25/09/2012

Ralph Cormac

Dwelling-House

Lot 1 DP 1168117, 1 Waratah Street, Scotts Head

160,000

2012/116

25/09/2012

Vicki Lewis

Dwelling Additions

Lot 67 DP 228703, 5 Dolphin Place, Valla Beach

40,000

2012/117

27/09/2012

Christopher O'Brien

Dwelling

Lot 1 DP 1105318, 7 Sharwill Drive, Valla

150,000

2012/118

27/09/2012

Philip Ramsden

Dwelling & shed

Lot 5 DP 1098738, Mitchells Road, Valla

500,000

2012/119

28/09/2012

Geolink

Education Establishment - St Patricks Primary School

Lots 102 & 104 DP 1164163, Upper Warrell Creek Road, Macksville

7,600,000

2012/120

28/09/2012

Mick Brooks Building Designs

Dwelling Additions

Lot 1 DP 711303, 14 Raleigh Street, Scotts Head

100,000

2012/121

28/09/2012

Irene Williams

Change of Use - Hair Salon

Lot 1 DP 39891, 6 Old Coast Road, Nambucca Heads

0

 

 

 

 


COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED FROM 15 - 28 SEPTEMBER 2012

Including those issued by Private Certifiers

 

DA Number

Application Date

Applicant/Owner

Development

Address

Estimated Value

2012/632

12/09/2012

R Aitken

Dwelling Additions

Lot 4 DP 8943, 38 West Street, Macksville

87,000

2012/633

25/09/2012

G O'Grady

Swimming Pool

Lot B DP 328392, 35 Matilda Street, Macksville

8,000

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/COMPLYING DEVELOPMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY FROM 15 - 28 SEPTEMBER 2012

 

CONSENT/ DA

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

DEVELOPMENT DETERMINED

EST VALUE

$

2012/106

Lot 6 DP 242819, Egan Street, Macksville

Change of Use ? Commercial Oyster Sale & Signage

0

2012/023/01

Lot 6 DP 881990, 10 Eddy Close, Way Way

Additions Modification

 

2012/104

Lot 60 DP 239693, 2 Hibiscus Way, Scotts Head

Dwelling Additions

150,000

2012/101

Lot: 15 DP: 755544, 571-576 Upper Buckrabendinni Road Buckra Bendinni

Continued use of dwelling and retention of 2nd non-habitable dwelling

0

2012/633

Lot B DP 328392, 35 Matilda Street, Macksville

Swimming Pool

8,000

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.4??? SF1709??????????? 101012???????? Outstanding DA's greater than 12 months, applications where submissions received not determined to 28 September 2012

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Lorraine Hemsworth, Business Service Coordinator ????????

 

Summary:

 

In accordance with Council resolution from 15 May 2008 meeting, the development applications listed below are in excess of 12 months old (Table 1) (one application is in excess of 12 months old).

 

Table 2 is development applications which have been received but not yet determined due to submissions received. In accordance with Minute 848/08 from Council meeting of 18 December 2008, should any Councillor wish to ?call in? an application a Notice of Motion is required specifying the reasons why it is to be ?called in?.

 

If an application is not called in and staff consider the matters raised by the submissions have been adequately addressed then the application will be processed under delegated authority. Where refusal is recommended the application may be reported to Council for determination.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That the list of outstanding development applications (in excess of 12 months old) be noted and received for information by Council

 

2????????? That the applications where submissions have been received be noted and received for information by Council.

 

 

 

TABLE 1: ????? UNRESOLVED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN EXCESS OF 12 MONTHS OLD

 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED/
STAFF COMMENTS

2011/142

25/08/2011

Consolidation of 3 existing short term sites to create 1 long term site within the existing Nambucca Beach Holiday Park

Lot 162 DP 755560, 26 Swimming Creek Road, Nambucca Heads

? Submissions outlined in previous report to Council 27 September 2012 ? Item 10.1

Currently being assessed

Rec'd letter from RFS on 3/01/2012 requesting further information is required to enable them to assess the application

Information received and forwarded to RFS - awaiting reply

Matter to be presented to GPC meeting for final determination once assessment completed

 

DA2011/142 has been withdrawn

 

 

 

 


TABLE 2: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS WHERE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND ARE NOT YET DETERMINED

 

DA NO

DATE OF RECEIPT

PROPOSAL

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED/
STAFF COMMENTS

2012/069

06/06/2012

Increase in Production Capacity to 200,000 tonnes per annum

Lot 16 DP 1140719, 2 Centra Park Street, Macksville

? Greater noise reduction qualities be given to all structures

? Permanent noise monitoring station

As this is designated development it has now been sent to the Director-General to determine whether they will make the final determination.

????? The Director-General has not called DA2012/069 in so Council staff are preparing a report to Council 25.10.2012

2012/011

03/02/2012

Nambucca Gardens Estate 346 Lot Residential Subdivision with Residue, Associated Works - Staged

Lot 2 DP 1119830, Alexandra Drive, Bellwood

? Submissions outlined in previous report to Council 27 September 2012 ? Item 10.1

 

????? Consultants are preparing assessment report for JRPP

 

2012/111

10/09/2012

Telecommunications facility

Lot 1 DP 805735, 36 McKay Street, Macksville

???? No objection to establishment of tower

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report. ?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.5??? DA2012/097????? 101012???????? DA2012/097 Application for a Dwelling - with a Request to Vary Rural Buffer Requirements

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Selina McNally, Senior Town Planner ????????

 

Summary:

 

The applicant previously submitted a development application to council to consider a proposal for a dwelling with a request to vary Nambucca Development Control Plan (NDCP)?s requirements in relation to rural buffer distances ? as detailed within Part F of the NDCP.

 

Council staff had concerns in relation to the location of the proposed dwelling, not only due to the reduced rural buffer, but because of the particularly close proximity to neighbouring agricultural land. Council agreed with staff?s recommendation and refused consent as per resolution number 3445/12 and subsequently a refusal notice was issued for this previous development application 2011/185 (Council report for this previous DA at Attachment 1).

 

The applicant has now submitted this new development application 2012/097 which includes a revised location for the dwelling and, although a reduced rural buffer distance is still requested, the new location proposed is set significantly further away from the boundary than it was previously and it is considered to be an overall better position due to the varying gradients of the land within the application site and other natural influences.

 

This application has to be reported to Council as the variation to NDCP?s rural buffer requirements requested is greater than 10%.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

It is recommended that Council consent to the development application, subject to the draft conditions.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

?????? Option 2 is that Council consent to the development application subject to alternative conditions.

 

?????? Option 3 is that Council refuse to the development application, listings reasons in accordance with 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The application relates to Lot 2 1130291 on Taylors Arm Road in Upper Taylors Arm. The rural Lot is physically divided by Taylors Arm Road, with the majority of the 40 hectare Lot (37.63 ha) located on the northern side of Taylors Arm Road, leaving around 6.16 ha on the southern side. The Lot was created through a 3 Lot subdivision approval in 2007 and the subdivision included indicative envelopes for all of the Lots created. The indicative dwelling envelope for this Lot was on the larger portion north of Taylors Arm Road.

 

The applicant does not wish to build in the approved dwelling envelope, and has provided justification to such by detailing; it is in an unsuitable location due to the topography, southerly aspect, road access (or lack thereof) and its close proximity to the bush, Medlow Public School and the unformed Crown Road.

 

In 2011 in conjunction with the above justification, the applicant submitted a development application for a dwelling house, with the dwelling house proposed to be located on the southern portion of the Lot. The southern portion of the Lot is thin - with a width of only approximately 100 metres - and it is therefore impossible to erect a house on this southern portion and for it to also comply with NDCP?s rural buffer distances, from both adjacent rural properties.

 

In the original development application, the proposed location for the dwelling was extremely close to the boundary with the neighbouring farm to the East ? with only a 20 metre setback. Due to recent negative experiences with dwellings being located near to agricultural activities, and the potential for similar land use conflicts in the future, council staff had concerns about the proposed location for the dwelling. The applicant was advised of these concerns but decided to proceed with the dwelling at the originally proposed location. The application was subsequently reported to Council with a recommendation from council staff to refuse consent. Following a site inspection, Council refused the application and the refusal notice was issued.

 

On the site inspection on 13 June 2012 Council agreed with council staff that although the specific location for the dwelling as it was being reported to them was not considered suitable, this did not necessary mean a dwelling could not be located on the southern portion of the Lot at all, and other potential sites for the dwelling were identified, on this southern portion.

 

The refusal notice for 2011/185 was therefore detailed that it was this specific location of the dwelling with a setback of only 20 metres from the boundary with the neighbouring farm, that was deemed unacceptable, particularly when there were alternative locations within that southern portion of the Lot which were considered to be more suitable.

 

The applicant has now revised the location of the dwelling and realigned it to the centre of the southern portion of this Lot. Although it still does not meet the requirements of the NDCP for rural buffer distances, its proposed new location is the maximum distance from each boundary at 44 metres from each. Figure 1 shows the location of the dwelling as previously refused, and the new location proposed with this current development application.

 

 

Figure 1: Site Plan provided by applicant

 

 

Although 44 metres from the boundary with the adjacent neighbouring farm is still short of the required 80 metres as per Part E of the NDCP for rural buffers, the house has also been redesigned so it is only a car port at this 44 metre point and the habitable living space of the house is further setback - at approximately 50 metres away. This is consistent with the 50 metre rural buffer requirement as detailed in the NSW DPI ?Living and Working in Rural Areas? which is a document prepared for the NSW Department of Primary Industries to assist in managing land use conflicts.

 

This 50 metres is approximately a 30% reduction of the required 80 metre rural buffer as per the NDCP. Although this could be considered to still be a significant variation, it is the combination of the increased setback, re-designed house in relation to habitable living areas and better positioning due to the natural topography of both the site and next door, that results in an overall significantly better position for the dwelling.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

?????? Internal

 

Manager of Technical Services

 

Manager of Technical Services recommended conditional consent, and subsequently the recommended conditions have been included in the draft conditions attached.

 

Health and Building

 

Council staff have advised that an application for a revised septic licence application will be required to alter the current design due to topographical constraints on the site. The appropriate condition has been included in the draft conditions to ensure a Section 68 License is obtained for the septic system.

 

 

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION ? SECTION 79C(1) EP&A ACT

 

In its assessment of a development application, Council is required to take into consideration the following matters:

 

a????????? the provisions of

 

(i) any environmental planning instruments

 

Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 2010.

 

(ii) any draft environmental planning instrument

 

There are none specifically relevant to the proposal.

 

(iii) any development control plan (DCP)

 

This site is mainly Zoned RU2 ? Rural Landscape, with some small areas of RU1 ? Primary Production. A dwelling is a permissible use in both these Zones.

 

Nambucca Development Control Plan 2010

 

Notification and Advertising

 

The application was notified and no submissions were received in response to the notifications sent.

 

Environmental Context and Site Analysis

 

The proposal relates to a Rural allotment physically split by Taylors Arm Road. The applicant would like to erect a dwelling on the southern portion, which means it will not comply with NDCP?s requirements for rural buffers. When the subdivision took place the dwelling envelope was approved on the northern portion. The position of the dwelling now proposed is in the centre of the southern portion, ensuring the greatest distance from both neighbouring farms. Impacts from the adjacent farms will be further minimised due to the natural topography of the land within this allotment and that of the two neighbouring allotments.

 

Site Analysis

 

The allotment is physically divided by Taylors Arm Road and the development application relates to the portion south of Taylors Arm Road. This is a thin parcel and has varying gradients in land form throughout. The revised proposed location for the dwelling is a ridgeline and is approximately the middle of this southern portion.

 

Sediment and Erosion Controls

 

Some ground works have been undertaken prior to any development consent being issued, as discovered through site inspections undertook for the previous development application. The standard conditions for sediment and erosion prevention measures have been included in the draft conditions, at condition 14, however, Council may opt to request that an Erosion and Sediment Management Plan be prepared and submitted to Council for approval instead.

 

Rural and Environmental Development

 

Part F of the NDCP relates to development in the rural and environmental zones and Clause F1.3.2 details the requirements for rural buffers for development adjacent to rural zones. The applicant has requested a variation to the requirement for a 80 metre setback from the adjacent rural land. The proposed setback for the new location of the dwelling will be 44 metres from the boundary, at the nearest point. Although still falling somewhat short of the required 80 metres, the revised location of the dwelling is now in the middle of this southern portion of land, therefore, it is as far away from each boundary as it can possibly be, if a dwelling is to be erected on this southern portion at all. On the site inspection Council conducted on 13 June 2012 and during the Councillor discussions that followed in relation to the previous DA, it seemed apparent there was no objection to a dwelling on this southern portion, but that the specific location proposed through the original DA was objected to.

 

Due to the topography of the application site and the adjoining allotment, this is considered to be a good location, as it itself is set high on a ridgeline and the nearest part of the adjoining farmland contains steep changes in land levels, making it less likely to utilised for farming activity.

 

 

b????????? the likely impacts of the development

 

Context and Setting

 

The previously refused development application proposed that the dwelling be built adjacent to the boundary with the neighbouring working farm. The applicant has now revised the location and it is proposed that the dwelling will be sited in the middle of the southern portion of this allotment.

 

c?????????  the suitability of the site for the development

 

The site is considered capable of supporting the development with minimal potential for harm to the amenity of the area in the revised proposed location.

 

d????????? any submissions made in accordance with the Act or the regulations

 

The application was notified and no submission were received.

 

e????????? the public interest

 

The proposal is not predicted to bring any harm to the community in the immediate vicinity or the greater locality.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no direct negative impacts to the environment predicted, subject to the appropriate conditions.

 

Social

 

The revised position of the dwelling house is considered to minimise future conflict in-between adjoining landowners.

 

Economic

 

It is considered the viability of the neighbouring farm should not be jeopardised due to the introduction of a dwelling on this southern portion of the Lot and therefore following ?Note? should be included on the consent to highlight Council?s ?Rural and Residential Land Activities Policy? to the applicant and any future occupiers.

 

?Right to Farm

 

The applicant is referred to and is required to respect Council?s ?Rural and Residential Land Activities Policy? which enforces the ethos of a ?right to farm? within rural areas. As such, no owners or temporary occupiers or visitors to the property may have any cause to complain about nuisances caused by existing surrounding rural land uses such as noise, smell, dust, spray, traffic etc from the near by farms and potential future agricultural land uses. ?

 

Risk

 

Some risk still exist for the potential of future conflict between adjoining land owners due to the close proximity of the dwelling to the boundary and the non-compliance with NDCP in relation to provision of rural buffers. However, the new location is considered to limit the risk to the minimum possible, whilst still allowing a dwelling on this southern portion, as the landowner wishes.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

None identified.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Not applicable.

 

Should Council resolve to approve the development, the following draft conditions are recommended:

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THIS CONSENT

 

Development is to be in accordance with approved plans

 

1??????? The development is to be implemented generally in accordance with the plans and supporting documents endorsed with the Council stamp, dated 11 October 2012 and authorised signature, and set out in the following table except where modified by any conditions of this consent.

 

Plan No/Supporting Document

Version

Prepared by

Dated

Site Plan

 

Amos & McDonald

Aug 2012

Block Plan Sheet 1a

 

Heritage Design and drafting

Aug 2012

Upper Floor Plan Sheet 2

 

Heritage Design & Drafting

Aug 2012

Lower Floor Plan Sheet 2a

 

Heritage Design & Drafting

Aug 2012

Elevations Sheet 3

 

Heritage Design & Drafting

Aug 2012

Elevations Sheet 4

 

Heritage Design & Drafting

Aug 2012

Sections Sheet 5

 

Heritage Design & Drafting

Aug 2012

Statement of Environment Effects

 

 

Aug 2012

BASIX Certificate 439512S

 

 

25 July 2012

?

In the event of any inconsistency between conditions of this development consent and the plans/ supporting documents referred to above, the conditions of this development consent prevail.

 

Compliance with Building Code of Australia and insurance requirements under Home Building Act 1989

 

3??????? All building work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia as in force on the date the application for the relevant construction certificate or complying development certificate was made.

 

????????? In the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of that Act, that such a contract of insurance is in force before any building work authorised to be carried out by the consent commences.

 

This condition does not apply:

 

a??????? to the extent to which an exemption is in force under clause 187 or 188, subject to the terms of any condition or requirement referred to in clause 187 (6) or 188 (4), or

b??????? to the erection of a temporary building.

 

Notification of Home Building Act 1989 requirements

 

4??????? Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the Council) has given the Council written notice of the following information:

 

a??????? in the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be appointed:

i???????? the name and licence number of the principal contractor, and

ii??????? the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act,

b??????? in the case of work to be done by an owner-builder:

i???????? the name of the owner-builder, and

ii??????? if the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder permit under that Act, the number of the owner-builder permit.

 

If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in progress so that the information notified above becomes out of date, further work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the Council) has given the Council written notice of the updated information.

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE FOR BUILDING WORKS

 

On-site sewage management facility Section 68 approval required

 

5??????? An approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 for on-site effluent disposal must be obtained from Council. The application for Section 68 approval must be accompanied by a report prepared by a suitably qualified professional with demonstrated experience in effluent disposal matters, which addresses the site specific design of sewage management in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Local Government Act, and Approvals Regulation and Guidelines approved by the Director General.

 

Compliance with BASIX Certificate

 

6??????? The Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) is to ensure that the proposed development is constructed in accordance with the requirements of BASIX Certificate No 439512S Issued 25 July 2012. The Plans submitted for approval with the Construction Certificate must include all of the BASIX Certificate commitments indicated in this certificate.

 

Where changes to the development are proposed that may affect the water, thermal comfort or energy commitments, a new BASIX Certificate may be required.

 

Driveway details required

 

7??????? The application for a Construction Certificate is to include plans and specification that indicate vehicular access from the site boundary to the proposed car space(s). Vehicular access must be in accordance with AS 2890.1-2004: Parking facilities, Part 1: Off-street Car Parking No 1. Plans are to include the following items:

 

a??????? pavement description (grades exceeding 15% must be sealed);

b??????? site conditions affecting the access;

c??????? existing and design levels;

d??????? longitudinal section from the road centreline to the car space(s);

e??????? cross sections every 20 metres;

f???????? drainage (open drains, pipes, etc), including calculations and catchment details.

 

The plans must be in compliance with Council's Adopted Engineering Standard.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTION WORKS COMMENCING

 

Residential building work

 

8??????? Building work that involves residential building work (within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989) must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority:

????????? a??????? in the case of work to be done by a licensee under that Act:

i???????? has been informed in writing of the licensee?s name and contractor licence number, and

ii??????? is satisfied that the licensee has complied with the requirements of Part 6 of that Act, or

b??????? in the case of work to be done by any other person:

i???????? has been informed in writing of the licensee?s name and contractor licence number, and

ii??????? has been informed in writing of the person?s name and owner-builder permit number, or

iii?????? has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land, that states that the reasonable market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work is less than the amount prescribed for the purposes of the definition of owner-builder work in Section 29 of that Act, and is given appropriate information and declarations under paragraphs (a) and (b) whenever arrangements for the doing of the work are changed in such a manner as to render out of date any information or declaration previously given under either of those paragraphs.

 

Note: The amount referred to in paragraph (b) (iii) is prescribed by regulations under the Home Building Act 1989. As at the date on which this Regulation was Gazetted that amount was $5,000. As those regulations are amended from time to time, so that amount may vary.

 

A certificate purporting to be issued by an approved insurer under Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989 that states that a person is the holder of an insurance policy issued for the purposes of that Part is, for the purposes of this clause, sufficient evidence that the person has complied with the requirements of that Part.

 

Site construction sign required

 

9??????? A sign or signs must be erected before the commencement of the work in a prominent position at the frontage to the site:

 

a??????? showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work, and

b??????? showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

c??????? stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

 

The sign is to be maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out, but must be removed when the work has been completed. No sign is to have an area in excess of one (1) m2.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH DURING CONSTRUCTION

 

Construction times

 

10????? Construction works must not unreasonably interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood. In particular construction noise, when audible on adjoining residential premises, can only occur:

 

a??????? Monday to Friday, from 7.00 am to 6.00 pm.

b??????? Saturday, from 8.00 am to 1.00 pm.

 

No construction work is to take place on Saturdays and Sundays adjacent to Public Holidays and Public Holidays and the Construction Industry Awarded Rostered Days Off (RDO) adjacent to Public Holidays.

 

Builders rubbish to be contained on site

 

11????? All builders rubbish is to be contained on the site in a ?Builders Skips? or an enclosure. Building materials are to be delivered directly onto the property. Footpaths, road reserves and public reserves are to be maintained clear of rubbish, building materials and all other items.

 

Rainwater tank requirements

 

12????? Rainwater tank/tank-stand installations are to be structurally sound, and in accordance with manufacturers detail and/or Guidelines for Plumbing Associated with ?Rainwater Tanks in Urban Areas?. Overflow from the tank is to be diverted to the existing stormwater system, or disposed of in a manner not to cause nuisance to neighbouring properties or degradation of land.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO OCCUPATION OF THE BUILDING

 

Works to be completed

 

13????? All of the works indicated on the plans and granted by this consent, including any other consents that are necessary for the completion of this development, are to be completed and approved by the relevant consent authority/s prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate. The bond paid for this application will be held until Council is satisfied that no further works are to be carried out that may result in damage to Council?s road/footpath reserve.

 

Sediment and Erosion

 

14????? Sediment and erosion control measures must be maintained at all times until the site has been stabilised by permanent vegetation cover or hard surface.

 

 

Bushfire Mitigation Requirements

 

15????? The following bushfire mitigation requirements are to be incorporated into the completed development:

 

a??????? At the commencement of building works and in perpetuity the property around the building to a distance of 40m or the property boundary, shall be maintained as an inner protection area(IPA)as outlined within section 4.1.3 and appendix 5 of ?Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006? and the NSW Rural Fire Service?s document ?Standards for asset protection zones?.

 

b??????? In recognition that no reticulated water supply is available to the development, a total of 20,000 litres fire fighting water supply shall be provided for fire fighting purposes. The fire fighting water supply shall be installed and maintained in the following manner:

 

c??????? Fire fighting water supply tank(s) shall be located not less than 5m and not more than 20m from the approved structure.

 

d??????? A hardened ground surface for fire fighting truck access is to be constructed up to and within 4m of the fire fighting water supply.

 

e??????? New above ground fire fighting water supply storage?s are to be manufactured using non combustible material (concrete, metal, etc). Where existing fire fighting water supply storage?s are constructed of combustible (polycarbonate, plastic, fibreglass, etc) materials, they shall be shielded from the impact of radiant heat and direct flame contact.

 

f???????? Non combustible materials (concrete, metal, etc) will only be used to elevate or raise fire fighting water supply tank(s) above the natural ground level.

 

g??????? A 65mm metal Storz outlet with a gate or ball valve shall be fitted to any fire fighting water supply tank(s) and accessible for a fire fighting truck. The Storz outlet fitting shall not be located facing the hazard or the approved structure.

 

h??????? The gate or ball valve, pipes and tank penetration are adequate for full 50mm inner diameter water flow through the Storz fitting and are constructed of a metal material.

 

i???????? All associated fittings to the fire fighting water supply tank(s) shall be non-combustible.

 

j???????? Any below ground fire fighting water supply tank(s) constructed of combustible (polycarbonate, plastic, fibreglass, etc) materials shall be shielded from the impact of radiant heat and direct flame contact.

 

k??????? Any fire fighting water supply tank(s) located below ground shall be clearly delineated to prevent vehicles being driven over the tank.

 

l???????? All water supplies for fire fighting purposes shall be clearly signposted as a fire fighting water supply.

 

m?????? Below ground fire fighting water supply tank(s) shall have an access hole measuring a minimum 200mm x 200mm to allow fire fighting trucks to access water direct from the tank.

 

n??????? Fire fighting water supply tank(s) and associated fittings, located within 60m of a bushfire hazard and on the hazard side of an approved building, shall be provided with radiant heat shielding to protect the tank from bush fire impacts and maintain safe access to the water supply for fire fighters.

 

o??????? A minimum 5hp or 3kW petrol or diesel powered pump shall be made available to the water supply. A 19mm (internal diameter) fire hose and reel shall be connected to the pump. Fire hose reels must be installed so that each elevation of the building can be reached by a fire hose. The fire hose reels must be constructed in accordance with AS/NZS 1221:1997, Fire hose reels and installed in accordance with AS 2441?1988, Installation of fire hose reels, as in force on 1 September 2005.

 

p??????? Pumps are to be shielded from the direct impacts of bush fire.

 

q??????? A Static Water Supply (SWS) sign shall be obtained from the local NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) and positioned for ease of identification by RFS personnel and other users of the SWS. In this regard:

 

i???????? Markers must be fixed in a suitable location so as to be highly visible; and

ii??????? Markers should be positioned adjacent to the most appropriate access for the water supply.

????????? Note: Below ground dedicated fire fighting water supply tank(s) is defined as that no part of the tanks(s) is to be located above natural ground level.

 

In recognition that the dwelling/structure maybe connected to a gas supply, the following requirements are to be complied with:

 

r???????? Reticulated or bottled gas is to be installed and maintained in accordance with Australian Standard AS/NZS 1596:2002: 'The storage and handling of LP gas' and the requirements of relevant authorities. Metal piping is to be used. q) All fixed gas cylinders are kept clear of all flammable materials to a distance of 10m and be shielded on the hazard side of the installation. r) Gas cylinders kept close to the building shall have release valves directed away from the building. Connections to and from gas cylinders are to be metal.

 

s??????? Polymer sheathed flexible gas supply lines to gas meters adjacent to building are not to be used.

 

t???????? The intent of measures for property access is to provide safe access to/from the public road system for fire fighters providing property protection during a bush fire and for occupants faced with evacuation. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

 

????????? i???????? The property access road shall comply with Section 4.1.3(2) of ?Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006?, excepting that an alternate property access road is not required.

 

u??????? New construction shall comply with Section 5 (BAL 12.5) Australian Standard AS3959-2009 'Construction of buildings in bush fire-prone areas' and section A3.7 Addendum Appendix 3 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection'.

 

v??????? Landscaping to the site is to comply with the principles of Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

 

 

Attachments:

1View

7831/2012 - DA 2011/165 Application for a dwelling

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

DA2012/097 Application for a Dwelling - with a Request to Vary Rural Buffer Requirements

 

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.7??? DA2011/165????? 160512???????? DA 2011/165 Application for a dwelling to be located outside the dwelling envelope - Taylors Arm Road, Upper Taylors Arm

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Selina McNally, Senior Town Planner ????????

 


 

Summary:

 

Applicant:????????????????????? Mr D M Welsh

 

Proposal:?????????????????????? Rural Dwelling-House

 

Property:??????????????????????? Lot 2 DP 1130291, Taylors Arm Road, Upper Taylors Arm

 

Zoning:?????????????????????????? RU1 Primary Production and RU2 Rural Landscape

 

A development application has been received for a dwelling on Lot 2 DP 1130291, Taylors Arm Road, Upper Taylors Arm. Upon referral from the Health and Building Team to Town Planning it was discovered the dwelling is not located within the approved dwelling envelope. Furthermore, while the approved dwelling envelope met Council?s DCP requirements for rural buffers, the proposed new location for the house does not.

 

The application is referred to Council for determination due to the significant variation to council?s Development Control Plan - Rural Buffers and in particular due to Council's recent resolution to review rural buffer distances to minimise rural land use conflicts.

 

Council staff have formally advised the applicant that the proposed dwelling should be located within the originally approved dwelling envelope and it does not support the proposed new location. The applicant was given the opportunity to withdraw the application. The applicant has requested that the matter be referred to Council for final determination.

 

NOTE: This matter requires a ?Planning Decision? referred to in Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requiring the General Manager to record the names of each Councillor supporting and opposing the decision.

 

 


 

Recommendation:

 

That Council refuse Development Application 2011/165 as the proposed dwelling envelope does not comply with Part F - Nambucca Development Control Plan 2012 ? Rural and Environmental Development Standards for Rural Buffers.

 

 


OPTIONS:

 

Council could Resolve to relax the Rural Buffer setback (60m plus a 20m Vegetation buffer or 80m) in this instance and only require setbacks in compliance with the Rural Fire Service requirements and approve the application and apply the recommended draft conditions.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

An application for a 3 lot Rural Subdivision was approved on 18 October 2007 which created the subject lot being Lot 2 DP 1130291 (in two parts) with the proposed building envelope being located on the larger part of Lot 2 (see Plan 1 at the end of the Report). Lot 2 is split by Taylors Arm road and the majority of the land is on the northern side (37.63ha) of Taylors Arm Road with the smaller part (6.16ha) located on the southern side and would have been included to meet the 40ha minimum Lot size requirement. When the original subdivision was assessed and approved, the indicative dwelling envelope was located on the northern part near the village of Taylors Arm and met all the required setbacks and buffers.

 

Although the term indicative dwelling envelope is used, this term does allow some flexibility to the location of the dwelling where it sometime moves outside of the parameters sets by the dwelling envelope and not to facilitate a significantly different location. In this instance, the new location is over 1km away from the approved dwelling envelope and moves from the northern portion near the village to the southern portion of land surrounded by rural land (see Plan 2 at the end of the Report). Furthermore, the original subdivision did not require any requests to vary DCP requirements due to the location of the dwelling envelopes, but the proposed new location of the dwelling will not meet Council?s DCP for Rural Buffers.

 

The original subdivision was Integrated Development and NSW RFS provided a Safety Authority Certificate as per the requirements of Section 100B of the Bushfire Act, for the original indicative building envelope.

 

The applicant has engaged Dennis Atkinson Planning to provide justification to the request to vary the DCP requirement in relation to rural buffers. Furthermore, the applicant supports the proposed location by agreeing not to complain about existing or potential future activities and their subsequent emissions of noise, smell etc from the adjacent neighbouring farm land. A note could be placed on the condition of consent to ensure developers of the house are made aware of Council?s Right to Farm Policy, however, there is no opportunity for Council to notify future owners or occupiers of the dwelling once it has been constructed. The opportunity only lies at subdivision stage, when a restriction could be placed on the new Title.

 

A submission has been received by the land owner of the neighbouring rural property, which will be only 20m away from the proposed dwelling at it?s nearest point. The submission reiterates Council?s concerns that his land is used for farming and normal farming enterprises will be undertaken very close to the dwelling and subsequent noise and dust will be produced, in particular as this boundary is used as their main laneway. The submission also raises concerns over the location of the driveway which is as a consequence of where the dwelling is proposed, is very close to the existing fence line in-between the two properties and this area is historically prone to land slips. A condition to provide adequate batters on the road and an appropriate setback to the fence has been included on the draft conditions should Council resolve to approve the proposed amended location of the dwelling.

 

Council can not consider any condition which would relate to the provision of a vegetation buffer to offset for reduced setback as NSW RFS require an Inner protection Zone of 40 metres, or to the nearest boundary (20m at the Eastern boundary), be maintained around the property.

 

With the recent consideration of odours eminating from a free range piggery and Council's resolution to review its Rural Buffers policy and setbacks, this proposal may very well be at odds with the intent of Council's resolution and create a further problem which may not be immediate but may arise as properties change hands and expectations or tolerances of subsequent landowners towards traditional farming and agricultural pursuits.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Internal

 

Engineers

 

Engineers do not object to the proposal subject to conditions.

 

Health and Building

 

No objections subject to several conditions and in particular one in relation to driveways details.

 


External

 

New South Wales Rural Fire Service

 

As the Safety Authority Certificate issued for the subdivision considered a dwelling envelope in a significantly different location to the one now proposed for the house, the application for the house was referred to them.

 

The RFS has subsequently issued a new Fire Safety Authority Certificate which requires a 40m inner protection area (IPA) along with a number of other requirements.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

No predicted harm to the Environment, subject to the appropriate measures be implanted to prevent land slips.

 

Social

 

Approval of the dwelling in this proposed location has the potential to cause rural land use conflicts in the future.

 

Economic

 

The objectives of the rural Zones are to encourage sustainable primary production, minimise conflict land uses within the Zone and land uses with adjoining zones and maintain a range of compatible uses, including extensive agriculture. It is possible that having a residential dwelling so close to this valuable rural land could put off land owners, current and future, to extend their farming activities, which would be against the objectives of the rural Zones.

 

Risk

 

Council potentially risks future complaints from future occupiers of the dwelling as Council approved its location very close to a working farm.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Any future investigations, smell reports of similar, or legal advice for neighbour disputes, could impact on future budgets.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

None identified.

 


Should Council resolve to approve the development, the following draft conditions are recommended:

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THIS CONSENT

 

Development is to be in accordance with approved plans

 

1??????? The development is to be implemented generally in accordance with the plans and supporting documents endorsed with the Council stamp, dated *** and authorised signature, and set out in the following table except where modified by any conditions of this consent.

 

Plan No/Supporting Document

Version

Prepared by

Dated

Site Plan Sheet 1a

 

Heritage Design & Drafting

Oct. 2011

Upper Floor Plan Sheet 2

 

Heritage Design & Drafting

Oct. 2011

Lower Floor Plan Sheet 2a

 

Heritage Design & Drafting

Oct. 2011

Elevations Sheet 3

 

Heritage Design & Drafting

Oct. 2011

Elevations Sheet 4

 

Heritage Design & Drafting

Oct. 2011

Sections Sheet 5

 

Heritage Design & Drafting

Oct. 2011

Statement of Environment Effects

 

 

 

BASIX Certificate 395211S

 

 

 

 

In the event of any inconsistency between conditions of this development consent and the plans/ supporting documents referred to above, the conditions of this development consent prevail.

 

Integrated Approvals

 

2?????? Water supply, sewerage and stormwater drainage work

 

1??????? Install, alter, disconnect or remove a meter connected to a service pipe

2??????? Carry out stormwater drainage work

3??????? Connect a private drain or sewer with a public drain or sewer under the control of a council or with a drain or sewer which connects with such a public drain or sewer

 

 

Compliance with Building Code of Australia and insurance requirements under Home Building Act 1989

 

3??????? All building work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia as in force on the date the application for the relevant construction certificate or complying development certificate was made.

 

????????? In the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of that Act, that such a contract of insurance is in force before any building work authorised to be carried out by the consent commences.

 

This condition does not apply:

 

a??????? to the extent to which an exemption is in force under clause 187 or 188, subject to the terms of any condition or requirement referred to in clause 187 (6) or 188 (4), or

b??????? to the erection of a temporary building.

 

Notification of Home Building Act 1989 requirements

 

4??????? Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the Council) has given the Council written notice of the following information:

 

a??????? in the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be appointed:

i???????? the name and licence number of the principal contractor, and

ii??????? the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act,

b??????? in the case of work to be done by an owner-builder:

i???????? the name of the owner-builder, and

ii??????? if the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder permit under that Act, the number of the owner-builder permit.

 

If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in progress so that the information notified above becomes out of date, further work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the Council) has given the Council written notice of the updated information.

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE FOR BUILDING WORKS

 

On-site sewage management facility Section 68 approval required

 

5??????? An approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 for on-site effluent disposal must be obtained from Council. The application for Section 68 approval must be accompanied by a report prepared by a suitably qualified professional with demonstrated experience in effluent disposal matters, which addresses the site specific design of sewage management in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Local Government Act, and Approvals Regulation and Guidelines approved by the Director General.

 

Compliance with BASIX Certificate

 

6??????? The Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) is to ensure that the proposed development is constructed in accordance with the requirements of BASIX Certificate No 395211S, dated 20 September 2011. The Plans submitted for approval with the Construction Certificate must include all of the BASIX Certificate commitments indicated in this certificate.

 

Where changes to the development are proposed that may affect the water, thermal comfort or energy commitments, a new BASIX Certificate may be required.

 

Driveway details required

 

7??????? The application for a Construction Certificate is to include plans and specification that indicate vehicular access from the site boundary to the proposed car space(s). Vehicular access must be in accordance with AS 2890.1-2004: Parking facilities, Part 1: Off-street Car Parking No 1. Plans are to include the following items:

 

a??????? pavement description (grades exceeding 15% must be sealed);

b??????? site conditions affecting the access;

c??????? existing and design levels;

d??????? longitudinal section from the road centreline to the car space(s);

e??????? cross sections every 20 metres;

f???????? drainage (open drains, pipes, etc), including calculations and catchment details.

 

The plans must be in compliance with Council's Adopted Engineering Standard.

 

 


THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTION WORKS COMMENCING

 

Residential building work

 

8??????? Building work that involves residential building work (within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989) must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority:

????????? a??????? in the case of work to be done by a licensee under that Act:

i???????? has been informed in writing of the licensee?s name and contractor licence number, and

ii??????? is satisfied that the licensee has complied with the requirements of Part 6 of that Act, or

b??????? in the case of work to be done by any other person:

i???????? has been informed in writing of the licensee?s name and contractor licence number, and

ii??????? has been informed in writing of the person?s name and owner-builder permit number, or

iii?????? has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land, that states that the reasonable market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work is less than the amount prescribed for the purposes of the definition of owner-builder work in Section 29 of that Act, and is given appropriate information and declarations under paragraphs (a) and (b) whenever arrangements for the doing of the work are changed in such a manner as to render out of date any information or declaration previously given under either of those paragraphs.

 

Note: The amount referred to in paragraph (b) (iii) is prescribed by regulations under the Home Building Act 1989. As at the date on which this Regulation was Gazetted that amount was $5,000. As those regulations are amended from time to time, so that amount may vary.

 

A certificate purporting to be issued by an approved insurer under Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989 that states that a person is the holder of an insurance policy issued for the purposes of that Part is, for the purposes of this clause, sufficient evidence that the person has complied with the requirements of that Part.

 

Toilet facilities

 

9??????? Toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site. Each toilet provided must be a standard flushing toilet connected to a public sewer.

 

Site construction sign required

 

10????? A sign or signs must be erected before the commencement of the work in a prominent position at the frontage to the site:

 

a??????? showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work, and

b??????? showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

c??????? stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

 

The sign is to be maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out, but must be removed when the work has been completed. No sign is to have an area in excess of one (1) m2.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH DURING CONSTRUCTION

 

Construction times

 

11????? Construction works must not unreasonably interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood. In particular construction noise, when audible on adjoining residential premises, can only occur:

 

a??????? Monday to Friday, from 7.00 am to 6.00 pm.

b??????? Saturday, from 8.00 am to 1.00 pm.

 

No construction work is to take place on Saturdays and Sundays adjacent to Public Holidays and Public Holidays and the Construction Industry Awarded Rostered Days Off (RDO) adjacent to Public Holidays.

 

Builders rubbish to be contained on site

 

12????? All builders rubbish is to be contained on the site in a ?Builders Skips? or an enclosure. Building materials are to be delivered directly onto the property. Footpaths, road reserves and public reserves are to be maintained clear of rubbish, building materials and all other items.

 

Rainwater tank requirements

 

13????? Rainwater tank/tank-stand installations are to be structurally sound, and in accordance with manufacturers detail and/or Guidelines for Plumbing Associated with ?Rainwater Tanks in Urban Areas?. Overflow from the tank is to be diverted to the existing stormwater system, or disposed of in a manner not to cause nuisance to neighbouring properties or degradation of land.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO OCCUPATION OF THE BUILDING

 

Works to be completed

 

14????? All of the works indicated on the plans and granted by this consent, including any other consents that are necessary for the completion of this development, are to be completed and approved by the relevant consent authority/s prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate. The bond paid for this application will be held until Council is satisfied that no further works are to be carried out that may result in damage to Council?s road/footpath reserve.

 

Bushfire Mitigation Requirements

 

15????? The following bushfire mitigation requirements are to be incorporated into the completed development:

 

a??????? At the commencement of building works and in perpetuity the property around the building to a distance of 40m or the property boundary, shall be maintained as an inner protection area(IPA)as outlined within section 4.1.3 and appendix 5 of ?Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006? and the NSW Rural Fire Service?s document ?Standards for asset protection zones?.

 

b??????? In recognition that no reticulated water supply is available to the development, a total of 20,000 litres fire fighting water supply shall be provided for fire fighting purposes. The fire fighting water supply shall be installed and maintained in the following manner:

 

c??????? Fire fighting water supply tank(s) shall be located not less than 5m and not more than 20m from the approved structure.

 

d??????? A hardened ground surface for fire fighting truck access is to be constructed up to and within 4m of the fire fighting water supply.

 

e??????? New above ground fire fighting water supply storage?s are to be manufactured using non combustible material (concrete, metal, etc). Where existing fire fighting water supply storage?s are constructed of combustible (polycarbonate, plastic, fibreglass, etc) materials, they shall be shielded from the impact of radiant heat and direct flame contact.

 

f???????? Non combustible materials (concrete, metal, etc) will only be used to elevate or raise fire fighting water supply tank(s) above the natural ground level.

 

g??????? A 65mm metal Storz outlet with a gate or ball valve shall be fitted to any fire fighting water supply tank(s) and accessible for a fire fighting truck. The Storz outlet fitting shall not be located facing the hazard or the approved structure.

 

h??????? The gate or ball valve, pipes and tank penetration are adequate for full 50mm inner diameter water flow through the Storz fitting and are constructed of a metal material.

 

i???????? All associated fittings to the fire fighting water supply tank(s) shall be non-combustible.

 

j???????? Any below ground fire fighting water supply tank(s) constructed of combustible (polycarbonate, plastic, fibreglass, etc) materials shall be shielded from the impact of radiant heat and direct flame contact.

 

k??????? Any fire fighting water supply tank(s) located below ground shall be clearly delineated to prevent vehicles being driven over the tank.

 

l???????? All water supplies for fire fighting purposes shall be clearly signposted as a fire fighting water supply.

 

m?????? Below ground fire fighting water supply tank(s) shall have an access hole measuring a minimum 200mm x 200mm to allow fire fighting trucks to access water direct from the tank.

 

n??????? Fire fighting water supply tank(s) and associated fittings, located within 60m of a bushfire hazard and on the hazard side of an approved building, shall be provided with radiant heat shielding to protect the tank from bush fire impacts and maintain safe access to the water supply for fire fighters.

 

o??????? A minimum 5hp or 3kW petrol or diesel powered pump shall be made available to the water supply. A 19mm (internal diameter) fire hose and reel shall be connected to the pump. Fire hose reels must be installed so that each elevation of the building can be reached by a fire hose. The fire hose reels must be constructed in accordance with AS/NZS 1221:1997, Fire hose reels and installed in accordance with AS 2441?1988, Installation of fire hose reels, as in force on 1 September 2005.

 

p??????? Pumps are to be shielded from the direct impacts of bush fire.

 

q??????? A Static Water Supply (SWS) sign shall be obtained from the local NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) and positioned for ease of identification by RFS personnel and other users of the SWS. In this regard:

 

i???????? Markers must be fixed in a suitable location so as to be highly visible; and

ii??????? Markers should be positioned adjacent to the most appropriate access for the water supply.

????????? Note: Below ground dedicated fire fighting water supply tank(s) is defined as that no part of the tanks(s) is to be located above natural ground level.

 

In recognition that the dwelling/structure maybe connected to a gas supply, the following requirements are to be complied with:

 

r???????? Reticulated or bottled gas is to be installed and maintained in accordance with Australian Standard AS/NZS 1596:2002: 'The storage and handling of LP gas' and the requirements of relevant authorities. Metal piping is to be used. q) All fixed gas cylinders are kept clear of all flammable materials to a distance of 10m and be shielded on the hazard side of the installation. r) Gas cylinders kept close to the building shall have release valves directed away from the building. Connections to and from gas cylinders are to be metal.

 

s??????? Polymer sheathed flexible gas supply lines to gas meters adjacent to building are not to be used.

 

t???????? The intent of measures for property access is to provide safe access to/from the public road system for fire fighters providing property protection during a bush fire and for occupants faced with evacuation. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

 

????????? i???????? The property access road shall comply with Section 4.1.3(2) of ?Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006?, excepting that an alternate property access road is not required.

 

u??????? New construction shall comply with Section 5 (BAL 12.5) Australian Standard AS3959-2009 'Construction of buildings in bush fire-prone areas' and section A3.7 Addendum Appendix 3 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection'.

 

v??????? Landscaping to the site is to comply with the principles of Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

 




Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

Assistant General Manager Corporate and Community Services Report

ITEM 10.6??? SF1031??????????? 101012???????? Draft Policy - Abandoned Shopping Trolleys

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Monika Schuhmacher, Executive Assistant ????????

 

Summary:

 

A large number of shopping trolleys from various supermarkets in the towns of the Nambucca Valley are being abandoned in streets, near main roads and in parks and reserves.

 

Council?s Ranger has prepared a draft policy so that the return of these abandoned trolleys to their rightful supermarket can be carried out efficiently and effectively.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the Draft Abandoned Shopping Trolleys Policy be placed on public exhibition for 21 days.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may determine a new policy to deal with abandoned shopping trolleys.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Abandoned shopping trolleys, vandalised or otherwise, are unsightly to residents and visitors to the Valley.

 

If they are not returned to their appropriate supermarket, there is the added cost to the supermarket to replace them or in the case of some vandalised trolleys being returned there is the cost of either replacing them of repairing them.

 

The abandoned trolleys may also pose a hazard to vehicles and may be responsible for accidents.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Manager Applications and Compliance

Ranger

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

This report has no implications for the environment.

 

Social

This report has no impact on social aspects.

 

Economic

There are no significant economic implications.

 

Risk

There may be a risk of injury to vehicles if trolleys are left on roads or kerbsides.


 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

There is no impact on direct or indirect budgets as this will be part of the Ranger?s duties.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

There is no impact on working funds.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

24702/2012 - Draft Policy - Abandoned Shopping Trolleys

0 Pages

??


Ordinary Council Meeting - 10 October 2012

Draft Policy - Abandoned Shopping Trolleys

 

 

 

 

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

DRAFT POLICY

ABANDONED SHOPPING TROLLEYS

 

 

Our Vision

 

Nambucca Valley ~ Living at its best

 

Our Mission Statement

 

?The Nambucca Valley will value and protect its natural environment, maintain its assets and infrastructure and develop opportunities for its people.?

 

 

 

1.0?????? Policy objective

 

??????????? To facilitate the removal of abandoned shopping trolleys from the CBD?s and surrounding streets thus reducing the potential risk to public safety and possible litigation.

 

 

2.0?????? Procedures/Practice????????

 

??????????? A contact list for use by Council will be made available and updated on a regular basis by each retailer.

 

??????????? Councils? Ranger will be responsible for liaising with Supermarkets regarding abandoned trolley/s. The duty Manager of the supermarket will be responsible for liaising with Council regarding abandoned trolley/s.

 

??????????? Liaison between supermarkets and Council should be on a regular or as necessary basis to determine the number of trolleys either located or impounded and have arrangements for collection of abandoned trolleys.

 

??????????? Supermarkets are to ensure the ownership of all trolleys for customer use are easily identifiable.

 

??????????? Council personnel who become aware of the location of abandoned trolleys are to notify Ranger of the relevant information as soon as practicable, eg number, location and ownership.

 

??????????? The ranger will notify the supermarket as soon as possible by facsimile or otherwise.

 

??????????? The relevant store will collect the trolley/s within one full working day of notification from Council.

 

??????????? If the abandoned trolley/s have not been collected within one working day of the relevant store being notified, Council may impound the trolley/s. If the trolley/s pose a direct danger to any member of the public or traffic, the trolley/s will be impounded immediately.

??? Impounding fees are payable as per Councils? Fees and charges schedule.

 


 

2?????????

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

DRAFT POLICY

ABANDONED SHOPPING TROLLEYS

 

 

3.0?????? References

 

??????????? This Policy was considered by Council at its meeting on?????. This Policy was created on 20 September 2012.

 

 

 

3.1?????? Review Date

 

??????????? September 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Department:

Applications and Compliance

Last Reviewed

Resolution Number

Author:

Jeff Cutts

 

 

Document No.

 

 

 

First Adopted:

 

 

 

Resolution No:

 

 

 

Review Due:

 

 

 

 

?


Ordinary Council Meeting??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 10 October 2012

Assistant General Manager Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.1??? SF1185??????????? 101012???????? Naming the New Beach Area ? Ferry Street, Macksville

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:???? Keith Williams, Manager Technical Services ????????

 

Summary:

 

Council has received two requests to name the new beach area adjacent to the Lions Park, Ferry Street Macksville.? Council can decide to select one of the proposed names and advertise the name in accordance with Geographical Names Board Guidelines for the determination of place names.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1????????? That Council advertise its intention to adopt the name for the new beach area adjacent to the Lions Park, Ferry Street Macksville ?Water Sports Park?.

 

2????????? That comments and submissions on the proposal be received for a period of one month and that if no objections are received Council submit the name to the Geographic Names Board for advertising and adoption.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1????????? Council name the area without advertising

2????????? Council consider other names for the beach area

3????????? Council leave the area un-named.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Two names have been submitted for the new beach area adjacent to Lions Park, Ferry Street Macksville. The two names being:

 

Submission 1

 

Gan Park or Dr Gan Park named after Dr Paul Gan who has lives opposite the park in Ferry Street.? It has been reported in the submission that Dr Gan was instrumental in the project of cleaning up the Lantana and the rubbish on the rivers edge and has been doing this for many years.

 

Council?s Australia Day Committee recently recognised the Gan family?s tremendous contribution to the Valley at the 2012 Australia Day Celebrations.

 

?Names of persons should normally only be given posthumously but the Geographic Names Board, at its discretion, may approve a feature name which honours a living person if such a person?s contribution to the local community is considered outstanding.?

 

Submission 2

 

Members of the Nambucca Valley Rivers Users Group (NVRUG) have contributed numerous volunteer hours of their time and equipment to upgrade and reconstruct the foreshore at Ferry Street Macksville.? The facilities they have constructed are there for visitors and residents to take advantage of the waterfront.? In recognition of the work in the NVRUG, they have submitted the name ?Water Sports Park?.

 

The NVRUG feel the name applies to all aspects of its use and would hope to promote further enjoyment by the general public.

 

NVRUG propose erecting a sign across the entrance posts made from a water ski with ?Water Sports Park? written along the top edge and ?Proudly Constructed by NVRUG & Nambucca Shire Council.?

 

Council does not have a policy for the naming of Parks, Reserves or Sports Fields, however, Council is occasionally asked to provide a suitable name to identify them.

 

A search of policies from larger councils has identified The Geographical Names Board of NSW (GNB) as the authority, under the Geographic names Act 1966, responsible for the assignation of names and places